Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/originofdiscipleOOIong 


OKIGIN 


IB  9  1916 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST 


A  REVIEW  OF  PROF.  W  H.  WHITSITT'S  VOLUME  ENTITLED 
"ORIGIN  OF  THE  DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST." 


A  CONTRIBUTION  TO  THE  CLEARER  UNDERSTANDING  OF  THE  ORIGIN 
AND  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  REFORMATION  INAUGURATED 
BY  THOMAS  AND  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL,   NEAR  THE 
BEGINNING  OF  THE  PRESENT  CENTURY. 



By  GEORGE  W.  LONGAN, 

MINISTER  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


to  which  is  added  an  appendix  containing  extracts  from 
Keviews  of  Prof.  Whitsitt's  Book  by  Baptist  Writers. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY  J.  H.  GARRISON, 

EDITOR  CHRISTIAN-EVANGELIST. 


ST.  LOUIS: 
CHRISTIAN  PUBLISHING  COMPANY. 

1889. 


Copyrighted,  1889, 
BY 

CHRISTIAN  PUBLISHING  CO. 


TO  THE  MEMORY  OP 

Augustin  Knight  Longan 

and 

Martha  Letchworth  Longan , 

MY  HONORED  FATHER  AND  MOTHER, 

Who  were  Baptists  without  being  bigots,  and  joyfully 
received  truth,  as  God  gave  them  to  see  it, 
in  their  day  and  generation,  this 
little  volume  is  most  affectionately  inscribed  by 
THE  AUTHOR. 


INTRODUCTION. 


It  has  been  said  that  a  grain  of  wheat  or  barley,  found  in  the 
sarcophagus  of  an  Egyptian  mummy,  where  it  had  lain  dor- 
mant many  long  centuries,  when  placed  in  the  earth,  germi- 
nated, grew,  and  multiplied  itself  many  fold.  Whether  this 
incident  be  true  or  not  it  is  certain  that  many  seeds  are  cov- 
ered with  a  flinty  case  or  envelop  which  protects  them  in  a 
dormant  state  for  years,  until  they  are  surrounded  by  favora- 
ble conditions,  when  they  awaken  to  life  and  develop  all  their 
germinal  potentiality.  The  history  of  the  world's  progress 
shows  that  this  is  pre-eminently  true  of  those  seed-thoughts 
which,  from  age  to  age,  have  been  sown  in  the  minds  of  men, 
and  whose  ultimate  harvests  have  furnished  bread  for  the 
world's  hunger.  Truth  is  the  most  indestructible  of  all  poten- 
cies. The  men  who  speak  it  may  indeed  pay  the  penalty  of 
their  lives  for  its  utterance,  but  the  truth  they  utter  lives  on  to 
guide  the  course  of  history. 

"Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold  ; 

Wrong  forever  on  the  throne  ; 

Yet  that  scaffold  sways  the  future, 

For  behind  the  dim  unknown 

Standeth  God  within  the  shadow, 

Keeping  watch  above  his  own." 
"It  was  during  the  fiercest  dogmatic  controversies  and  the 
horrors  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,"  says  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History  (Vol.  VI.,  page  650),  "  that  a  prophetic 
voice  whispered  to  future  generations  the  watchword  of  Chris- 
tian peace-makers,  which  was  unheeded  in  a  century  of  intol- 
erance, and  forgotten  in  a  century  of  indifference,  but  resounds 
with  increased  force  in  a  century  of  revival  and  reunion  i  '  In 
Essentials  Unity,  in  Non-essentials  Liberty,  in  all  things 
Charity.' " 

This  famous  saying,  sometimes  referred  to  St.  Augustine, 

(5) 


vi 


IN  l  KODUCTION. 


and  oftener  to  Richard  Baxter,  who  quotes  it,  is  traced  by  Dr. 
Schaff  to  Rupertus  Meldenius,  an  otherwise  unknown  divine 
and  author  of  a  remarkable  tract,  in  which  the  sentence 
occurs.  This  tract,  it  is  believed,  appeared  in  the  year  1627  or 
1628.  Fifty  years  later,  however,  Baxter  quotes  it,  from  an- 
other author  in  the  preface  to  his  work  on  11  The  True  and  only 
way  of  Concord  of  all  the  Christian  Churches. ' '  And  now,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  19th  century,  two  hundred  years  later,  I  am 
quoting  this  same  great  truth  in  the  Introduction  to  afiother 
work,  which,  I  have  no  doubt,  offers  a  far  better  solution  of 
"the  true  and  only  way  of  concord  of  all  the  Christian 
churches  ! " 

Here,  then,  is  an  admirable  illustration  of  the  indestructible 
vitality  of  an  important  truth,  which  not  only  persists  in  living 
through  centuries  of  opposition  and  neglect,  but  which  mani- 
fests increased  power  over  each  succeeding  generation.  How 
few  there  were  to  recognize  in  this  statement  the  germ  of  a 
great  religious  reformation,  when  it  was  first  formulated  and 
uttered  by  Meldenius  !  In  Baxter's  day  it  attracted  more 
attention  as  offering  relief  from  the  interminable  strifes  and 
divisions  with  which  all  pious,  truth-loving  souls  were  weary. 
But  it  was  not  until  more  than  a  century  later  that  it  gained 
practical  recognition  in  an  organized  movement  having  for  its 
end  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  church. 

Indeed,  it  is  quite  certain  that  neither  Meldenius  nor  Baxter 
perceived  all  that  was  involved  in  this  memorable  motto. 
What  they  did  see,  evidently,  was  an  utter  lack  of  discrimina- 
tion, in  the  popular  mind,  between  the  things  which  are  vital 
and  those  which  are  incidental,  and  the  consequent  effort  to 
enforce  uniformity  at  the  expense  of  unity.  As  a  remedy  for 
this  state  of  things  they  proposed  the  foregoing  statement  which 
had  in  it  the  seed  of  a  reformation  yet  to  be.  But  the  seed 
must  wait  for  genial  soil  and  favorable  surroundings.  If  either 
of  the  men  named,  or  any  of  the  theologians  of  that  period 
who  accepted  this  motto,  had  been  asked  to  state  more  spe- 
cifically what  were  the  "things  essential,"  and  what  the 
"things  indifferent,"  their  answer,  doubtless,  would  have 
borne  the  marks  and  the  limitations  of  the  religious  thought  of 
their  times.    It  was  for  another  age  to  develop,  more  clearly 


INTRODUCTION. 


vii 


than  was  possible  at  that  time,  the  right  application  of  this 
principle  to  the  religious  problems  upon  which  Christendom 
had  divided  into  hostile  camps. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  present  century,  Thomas  Campbell, 
looking  at  the  same  evils  which  Meldenius,  Baxter  and  others 
had  seen  and  deplored,  uttered  a  not  less  remarkable  saying  in 
the  memorable  words  which  he  made  the  battle  cry  of  reform  : 
"Where  the  Scriptures  speak,  we  speak,  and  where  the  Scrip- 
tures are  silent,  we  are  silent."  The  clear  import  of  this  strik- 
ing motto  was,  What  is  enjoined  upon  men  by  divine  authority 
we  shall  insist  on  being  observed  ;  and  where  the  word  of  God 
has  left  men  free,  we  shall  not  bind  them.  The  phrase,  "things 
essential,"  had  now  been  interpreted  to  mean,  the  things  re- 
quired by  the  Scriptures,  and  the  "things  indifferent"  were 
those  where  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  left  men  free  to  follow 
their  best  judgment.  In  both  these  mottoes  there  is  a  clear 
recognition  of  divine  authority,  and  an  equally  distinct  rejec- 
tion of  human  authority  in  matters  of  religious  faith  and  prac- 
tice. In  each  of  them  there  is  a  solemn  emphasis  of  loyalty  to 
God,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  freedom  from  the  tyranny  of 
opinion,  on  the  other.  But  "where  the  Scriptures  speak"  is  a 
decided  advance,  in  the  direction  of  clearness  and  detiniteness, 
beyond  the  "  things  essential." 

In  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  as  urged  by  the  Camp- 
bells and  their  co-laborers,  another  distinction  of  great  value 
came  into  vogue.  The  11  things  essential"  of  this  17th  century 
motto,  and  the  things  enjoined  by  the  Scriptures,  were  called 
matters  of  faith,  while  inferences  on  matters  where  the  Scrip- 
tures are  "silent," — the  "things  indifferent  "—were  called 
matters  of  opinion.  This  distinction  between  faith  and  opinion 
— the  one  resting  on  divine  authority,  the  other  on  men's  falli- 
ble judgment — served  to  clear  away  a  good  deal  of  fog  from 
the  religious  atmosphere,  and  to  enable  men  to  go  forward  in 
the  work  of  reform  with  a  firmer  step.  It  was  now  seen  that 
a  great  many  things  which  properly  belonged  to  the  category 
of  inferential  knowledge,  and  might  be  classified  as  such,  rep- 
resenting the  results  of  Biblical  investigation,  could  never  be 
classified  as  belonging  to  the  things  of  faith,  or  have  any  legiti- 
mate place  in  a  creed  or  confession  of  faith.    It  Avas  the  clear 


viii 


INTRODUCTION. 


perception  of  this  distinction  that  led  our  reformatory  fathers 
to  reject,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion,  all  human  creeds 
and  confessions  of  faith.  It  was  not  that  these  creeds  con- 
tained errors,  though  doubtless  they  did,  being  the  results  of 
fallible  human  thought,  but  that  they  contained  matter  which, 
whether  true  or  false,  had  no  business  in  a  creed  or  confession 
of  faith,  to  serve  as  a  basis  of  fellowship  among  Christians. 
If  true,  they  belong  to  the  category  of  inferential  knowledge, 
not  of  faith.  If  they  suggested  wise  methods  of  organization, 
work  or  worship,  they  belonged  to  the  "things  indifferent," 
and  not  to  "  things  essential.1' 

In  the  historical  evolution  of  this  reformatory  principle, 
there  was  yet  another  step  taken,  which  was  essential  to  the 
application  of  this  venerable  motto  to  the  religious  questions 
of  the  age,  and  necessary  to  bring  the  reformers  clearly  on  to 
New  Testament  ground.  It  was  soon  perceived  in  the  light  of 
New  Testament  teaching,  that  the  faith  which  the  gospel  re- 
quires— the  truly  evangelical  faith — was  faith  in  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  It  was  not 
faith  in  dogmas,  propositions,  or  ordinances,  but  in  a  Savior, 
that  constitutes  saving  faith.  To  believe  in  him,  and  to  obey 
his  commandments  because  we  believe  in  him — these,  now,  it 
was  seen,  were  the  "essential  things,"  in  which  there  must  be 
"unit}*."  Other  matters,  not  contravening  these,  were  the 
"things  indifferent,"  concerning  which  there  must  be  "lib- 
erty." How  significant,  now,  the  saying  of  Paul,  "There  is 
one  faith  !  "  Many  opinions  there  may  be,  but  there  is  only 
one  faith,  having  for  its  object  the  one  Lord.  Here,  at  last,  was 
perspicuity  itself.  The  magnificent  generalization,  coined  by 
Meldenius  and  adopted  by  Baxter,  when  illumined  thus  by  the 
light  of  the  New  Testament,  became  an  operative  principle. 
Only  men  were  now  needed  with  the  courage  of  their  convic- 
tions, to  test  this  principle  in  the  practical  work  of  reform. 
The  men  were  not  wanting.  They  did  test  it;  and  with  what 
results  the  world  knows. 

The  origin  and  development  of  a  great  religious  movement, 
which,  in  less  than  three  quarters  of  a  century  has  gathered 
together  in  one  body,  from  the  world  and  from  all  the  discord- 
ant sects  of  Christendom,  more  than  three  quarters  of  a  mil- 


INTRODUCTION. 


ix 


lion  of  adherents,  who,  without  other  bond  of  union  or  basis 
of  fellowship  than  that  possessed  by  the  primitive  church, 
maintain  unity  in  things  essential  without  restricting  liberty 
in  things  indifferent,  is  a  subject  that  might  well  engage  the 
careful  thought  and  the  impartial  treatment  of  the  student 
of  church  history  and  of  religious  progress.  The  book  of 
which  this  volume  is  a  review,  seeks  the  origin  of  this  move- 
ment in  certain  accidental  or  incidental  ecclesiastical  re- 
lations, or  fortuitous  contact  of  individuals  by  which  strange 
and  peculiar  notions  and  practices  were  transmitted  through 
the  leaders  of  the  movement  and  embodied  in  what  is  termed 
the  current  reformation.  This  volume,  on  the  contrary,  with 
a  truer  historic  insight,  sees  in  this  religious  movement  the 
orderly  development  and  timely  embodiment  of  great  funda- 
mental truths,  which,  taking  their  source  in  the  very  nature 
and  organic  life  of  the  Christian  institution,  have,  after  cen- 
turies of  slight  and  neglect,  found  more  or  less  perfect  ex- 
pression in  the  utterances  of  men  who  lived  ahead  of  their 
time,  until  in  the  fulness  of  time,  in  a  freer  age  and  in  a 
freer  land,  they  have  found  opportunity  for  manifesting  their 
divine  potency.  It  is  more  than  a  reply  to  the  warped  opin- 
ions and  far-fetched  inferences  of  Prof.  Whitsitt.  It  is  a 
broad,  scholarly,  dignified  discussion  of  the  underlying  pjrin- 
ciples  of  our  movement,  which,  without  following  in  detail 
the  animadversions  of  the  book  it  reviews,  none  the  less 
effectually  removes  the  foundation  from  beneath  it.  The 
author  evidently  feels  that  no  mechanical  theory  about  "ofl> 
shoots"  or  imaginary  similarities  between  our  movement  and 
some  supposed  heresy  of  former  times  can  harm  us,  so  loug  as 
it  can  be  shown  that  we  build  on  the  same  foundation  on 
which  the  apostles  built,  and  hold  fast  to  those  principles 
which  have  made  Christianity  the  conquering  power  that  it 
has  been  in  the  world. 

That  this  volume  will  contribute  to  a  clearer  understanding 
of  the  fundamental  law — the  raison  d'etre— of  our  movement 
on  the  part  of  all  who  read  it  thoughtfully,  I  cannot  doubt. 
That  it  may,  also,  serve  to  hasten  that  unity  for  which  our 
Lord  prayed,  I  fain  would  hope  and  pray. 

St.  Louis,  April  1,  1S89.  J.  H.  Garrison. 


CONTENTS. 


PACT. 

Introduction        -        -        -        -  5 

CHAPTER  I. 
Preliminary  -         -         -         -         -         -  11 

CHAPTER  H. 
A  Brief  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  "Off -shoots"  -  1/ 

CHAPTER  III. 
An  Historical  Sketch  -  -  -  -  33 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Simple  Facts  of  the  Case        -  -  -66 

CHAPTER  V. 
A  Most  Fundamental  Difference    -  106 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Certain  Matters  of  Detail    -  -  -  -111* 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Baptists  148 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Relation  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ  to  Alex- 
ander Campbell  and  Other  Leaders    -  -  166 

Appendix     ------  183 


Origin  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

There  are  Baptists  and  Baptists.  That  is  to  say, 
there  are  Baptists  who  are  large-minded,  Christian 
men;  there  are  others  that  are  narrow,  illiberal, 
bigoted :  genuine  old  time  Pharisees,  as  it  were, 
only  dipped  and  newly  named.  Those  of  the  one 
class  are  gratified  to  see  differences  disappearing, 
old  animosities  gradually  dying  out,  and  more  fra- 
ternal relations  growing  up  between  themselves  and 
other  disciples  of  the  Lord.  The  rest  are,  appar- 
ently, never  quite  so  happy  as  when  stirring  up  old 
strifes,  fanning  the  fires  of  party  hate,  and  making- 
men  imagine  themselves  enemies  who  ought,  long- 
ago,  to  have  seen  clearly  that  they  are  brethren  in 
Christ.  With  those  of  the  former  class,  it  is  our 
duty  and  pleasure  to  cultivate  brotherly  love  and 
mutual  respect ;  as  for  the  other  sort,  it  is  sufficient, 
if  we  sincerely  pray  that  their  eyes  may  be  opened, 
and  patiently  bide  the  Lord's  time  for  the  answer 
to  our  prayers. 

;'  The  Origin  of  the  Disciples  ? "  That  should  be 
au  interesting  inquiry.    Of  course,  the  surface  facts 

en) 


12 


ORIGIN  of  Tin: 


are  common  property.  Disciples  and  Baptists  are 
alike  familiar  with  them.  But  there  is  a  deeper 
question,  one  which  the  philosophers  of  a  later  gen- 
eration are  certain  to  deal  with,  and  which  it  is  to 
be  hoped  they  will  be  better  able  to  answer,  than 
are  the  jaundice-eyed  sectarians  of  the  present 
time.  This  is  a  day  win  mi  men  are  looking  after 
origins  with  an  interest  which  was  never  felt  be- 
fore. The  birth  of  worlds,  the  beginning  of  life, 
the  derivation  of  species,  the  differentiation  of  social 
structures  and  functions,  in  the  ever-increasing 
complexity  of  civilized  life,  the  evolutions  of 
thought,  the  castaway  blunders,  the  survival  of 
tested  hypotheses,  which  have  marked  the  progress 
of  human  knowledge  from  the  dawn  of  the  histori- 
cal period,  to  the  present  year  of  grace, — these  are 
the  questions  concerning  which  the  thinkers  of 
our  time  consider  it  worth  while  to  employ  their 
highest  powers.  In  such  a  period,  the  origin  and 
development  of  a  movement  which  clearly  con- 
tains within  it  the  "  promise  and  potency"  of  most 
wonderful  achievements  for  God  and  our  fellow-men 
may  well  challenge  the  attention  of  honest  inqui- 
rers after  enduring  reality.  This  search  after  ori- 
gins is  a  most  fascinating  pursuit.  There  is  noth- 
ing like  it.  And  whether  it  relates  to  the  process- 
es by  which  the  insignificant  tadpole  gets  rid  of 
its  tail  and  gills,  and  acquires  legs  and  lungs,  a 
phenomenon  occurring  every  year  before  our  eyes, 
or  that  more  ancient  transformation,  in  which  the 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


13 


land-lubber  whale  of  the  elder  aBons  became — not 
exactly  a  fish,  for  that  he  is  not — but  monarch  of 
the  seas,  for  all  the  historical  ages,  it  makes  no 
difference  at  all.  It  is  in  any  case  a  question  of 
origin,  and,  as  such,  it  has  that  nameless  fascina- 
tion, which  you  are  not  able  to  explain,  but  which, 
nevertheless,  excites  an  interest  that  nothing  else 
in  the  wide  field  of  human  investigation  is  able  to 
arouse  within  you.  The  origin  of  the  Disciples ! 
That  is  the  question  now.  Prof.  Whitsitt  has  been 
rummaging  the  theological  records  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  has  found,  or  thinks  he  has  found,  in 
those  far  awafy  times,  traces  of  an  obscure  sect, 
which  presents  homologous  characteristics  with 
those  which  he  says  distinguish  the  Disciples  at 
present,  or  did  distinguish  them  a  generation  or 
two  ago,  and,  straightway,  he  springs  to  the  con- 
clusion that  here  is  a  clear  case  of  genetic  develop- 
ment. "The  Disciples  are  an  oifshoot  from  the  San- 
demanians."  This  is  their  origin.  This  explains 
why  they  are  here,  and  also  how  they  came  to  be 
here!!  Then  the  Sandemanians  were  adjudged 
great  heretics  by  some  people  in  their  day,  and 
therefore  the  Disciples  of  Christ  must  be  heretics 
too.  So  the  case  seems  fairly  made  out,  and, 
doubtless,  the  achievement  will  be  adjudged  of  suf- 
ficient importance  to  warrant  the  addition  of  other 
titular  honors  to  those  which  our  learned  Professor 
displays  in  connection  with  his  name  on  the  title- 
page  of  his  small,  but  somewhat  pretentious  book. 


14 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


But  really,  now  we  come  to  think  of  it,  what  does 
this  matter  of  ancestral  lineage  amount  to  after  all  ? 
Even  if  the  case  were  confessedly  clear  that  the 
Disciples  came  from  the  Sandemanians,  would  that 
fact  make  them  either  better  or  worse  ?  The  ques- 
tion of  genetic  descent  is  doubtless  one  of  great 
philosophic  interest,  but  what  has  it  to  do  with  the 
status  of  any  man,  or  any  community  of  men,  now 
living  ?  Should  the  Anglo-American  of  to-day  con- 
cern himself  greatly  in  regard  to  the  proportion  of 
Saxon,  Angle  or  Jute  blood  that  courses  in  his  veins  ? 
Is  he  either  better  or  worse  for  any  possible  com- 
bination of  these  ancient  elements  I  Or,  consider- 
ing the  question  from  the  ecclesiastical  standpoint, 
are  any  of  us  better  or  worse  because  our  ancestors, 
a  few  generations  back,  were  Roman  Catholics? 
Or,  if  in  making  their  way  out  of  spiritual  Babylon, 
our  forefathers  have  struggled  along  this  or  that 
dimly  lighted  pathway,  what  does  it  signify  ?  A 
man's  grandfather  was,  let  us  say,  a  Presbyterian, 
but  he  is,  himself,  a  Baptist.  His  great  grand-fath- 
er was  a  Roman  Catholic.  The  question  of  his  de- 
scent, genetically,  either  by  blood  or  ecclesiastic 
affiliation,  is  of  no  practical  significance.  The  in- 
terest which  attaches  to  such  a  question  is  purely 
scientific  or  philosophical.  The  important  matter 
is  not  that  of  descent,  but  of  ascent.  Have  the  gen- 
erations through  which  he  counts  his  lineage  been 
going  up  or  down  ?  Does  he  represent,  in  his  own 
person,  a  lower  or  higher  altitude?    This  is  the 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


15 


only  question  worth  a  groat,  when  we  are  dealing 
with  the  claims  of  a  religious  community.  I  may 
be  greatly  interested  in  tracing  the  interactions  of 
the  human  mind  with  its  social  or  ecclesiastical  en- 
vironment through  many  centuries,  in  noting  how, 
and  when,  it  has  disengaged  itself  from  this  false 
speculation,  or  that  rank  superstition,  and  emerged 
into  a  clearer  and  better  intellectual  atmosphere ; 
or  perchance  I  may  note  periods  of  decadence,  of  re- 
actionary tendencies,  when  the  wheels  of  progress 
have  been  reversed,  and  the  mind  has  gone  back- 
ward, instead  of  forward  to  its  divinely  predestined 
goal.  In  point  of  fact  I  am  greatly  interested  with 
such  studies.  But  I  hope  to  be  always  able  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  scientific  interest  of  such  an 
inquiry  and  that  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  signifi- 
cance of  its  final  outcome.  What  we  are  to-day, 
is  everything ;  what  our  forefathers,  in  any  sense, 
were  a  hundred  or  five  hundred  years  ago,  is  noth- 
ing. How  the  race  began,  along  what  physiologi- 
cal or  biological  lines  it  may  be  compelled  to  trace 
its  progress  when  science  has  uttered  its  final  word, 
does  not  affect  at  all  the  question  of  man's  rank 
and  dignity  at  the  present  time.  My  thoughts 
about  Christ,  about  the  gospel  of  Christ,  are  neith- 
er sound  or  unsound  on  account  of  the  traceable 
interactions  of  a  thousand  generations  through 
which  they  have  been  shaping  themselves  into  their 
present  form.  The  Disciples  of  Christ  are  to  be 
judged  by  their  faith  and  life  to-day,  just  as  Bap- 


16 


ORIGIN  OJt  THE 


tists  are,  and  not  by  any  real  or  imaginary  connec- 
tion with  generations  dead  and  gone.  And  this  I 
say  without  conceding  any  value  whatever  to  Prof. 
Whitsitt's  assumption  of  a  genetic  relationship  be- 
tween the  Disciples  and  the  Sandemanians  of  more 
than  a  hundred  years  ago.  If  his  case  were  made 
out,  it  is  nothing  ;  but  it  is  not  made  out. 

Why  a  Baptist,  of  all  the  men  in  the  world, 
should  start  this  question  of  lineage  is  scarcely 
clear.  There  is  no  denominational  appellative 
more  indefinite  than  Baptist.  Why,  how  many 
sorts  of  Baptists  are  there,  any  way  I  Let  us  see. 
There  are,  or  there  have  been,  Regular  Baptists, 
Separate  Baptists,  Calvinistic  Baptists  and  Arme- 
nian Baptists ;  Seventh  Day  Baptists  and  Six  Prin- 
ciple Baptists  ;  Baptists  that  were  for  sending  mis- 
sionaries to  the  heathen,  and  Baptists  that  were 
opposed  to  sending  missionaries  to  anybody.  I 
need  not  further  specify.  Prof.  Whiteitt  knows 
them  all.  I  make  no  comment.  Only  I  remark, 
in  passing,  that,  in  view  of  these  facts,  I  fail  to  see 
why  a  Baptist  Professor  should  concern  himself 
greatly  about  questions  of  ecclesiastic  origin. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


17 


CHAPTER  II. 

A  BRIEF  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  NATURE  OF  "OFFSHOOTS." 

No  great  movement  of  any  kind  ever  owed  its 
origin  to  a  single  individual.  When  we  speak  of 
the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  of  the  16th  cen- 
tury, we  designate  it  the  Lutheran  Reformation 
on  account  of  Luther's  great  prominence  in  its  in- 
ception and  early  progress.  Bat  when  we  say 
"  The  Lutheran  Reformation,"  if  we  are  not  lament- 
ably ignorant  of  its  history,  we  mean  no  more  than 
the  assignment  of  due  precedence  to  the  most  dis- 
tinguished among  a  great  number  of  able,  and 
equally  faithful,  men.  And  if  we  should  imagine 
that  there  were  no  influences  at  work,  no  deeply 
felt  dissatisfaction  with  the  existing  order  of  things, 
no  strong  intellectual  and  moral  tendencies  slowly 
shaping  themselves  for  future  effect,  before  Luther 
appeared  on  the  scene,  we  would  betray  very  gross 
ignorance  of  some  of  the  most  significant  facts  of 
history.  The  seeds  of  Protestant  truth  were  al- 
ready germinating  in  many  hearts,  when  the  monk 
of  Erfurt  began  his  remarkable  career  as  a  reform- 
er. The  Catholic  Stawpitz,  who  said  to  Luther, 
vainly  seeking  peace  through  the  intercession  of 
saints,  and  the  holy  virgin,  "  You  would  be  a  paint- 
ed sinner,  and  have  a  painted  Christ  as  a  Savior," 

o 


18 


ORIGIN  OY  THE 


was  already,  though  unconsciously,  much  more 
than  half  a  Protestant.  And  how  much,  for  good 
or  ill,  did  Luther  owe  to  Augustine,  the  greatest  of 
the  Latin  fathers  ?  It  was  Luther  himself  who  said, 
"Next  after  the  Holy  Scriptures,  no  teacher  in  the 
church  is  to  be  compared  with  Augustine  ;  take  the 
entire  body  of  the  fathers  together,  there  is  not  to 
be  found  in  them  half  that  we  find  in  Augustine 
alone.  "  We  may  differ  from  him  in  this  estimate. 
The  subtle  but  profound  insight  of  the  earlier 
Grecian  school  at  Alexandria  was  clearly  under- 
rated by  him.  But  the  point  I  press  is  Luther's  in- 
debtedness to  others,  and  the  fact  of  pre-existing 
tendencies,  which  shaped  his  thought,  and  deter- 
mined the  mighty  work  of  his  life.  The  greatest 
men  that  have  ever  lived  have  been  made  what 
they  were,  in  large  part,  at  least,  by  the  outward 
conditions — providential,  let  us  devoutly  say — 
which  surrounded  them  in  the  youthful  and  plastic 
period  of  their  careers.  It  was,  I  believe,  the 
thoughtful  and  brilliant  Frenchman,  M.  Taine,  who 
said  that  the  "Protestant  movement"  (I  quote  the 
meaning,  not  the  precise  words)  "  would  have  been 
impossible  at  the  time,  in  any  other  country  of  Eu- 
rope than  Germany. "  A  great  movement  in  the 
world's  living  tJiougM  must  have  an  adequate 
preparation.  Next  to  Germany,  England  was  the 
best  field  for  Protestant  missionary  effort.  Wy- 
cliffe,  "  The  Morning-star  of  the  Reformation,  "  and 
Tyndale,  the  translator  anjl  martyr,  did  not  live 


BISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


19 


and  suffer  in  vain.  M.  Taine  well  say  "  that  Eng- 
land was  more  than  half  Protestant  when  Henry 
^  VIII.  found  himself  driven  to  separation  from 
Rome."  Not  by  any  means  the  least  interesting- 
feature  in  Dr.  Neander's  great  history  of  the  church 
is  the  scholarly  and  pains- taking  minuteness  with 
which  he  traces  the  evolution  of  ideas,  disclosing 
thereby  the  hidden  forces  by  which  all  important 
changes  in  the  exterior  course  of  things  had  been 
gradually  wrought  out.  Uniformitarianism  is  the 
law  of  human  history,  no  less  than  that  of  the  plan- 
et on  which  we  live.  That  there  have  been  ex- 
ceptional periods,  periods  of  relatively  great  and 
rapid  changes,  is  in  no  sense  contrary  to  the  gener- 
al fact.  He  has  been  a  very  superficial  student  of 
mundane  events  who  has  not  made  this  discovery, 
and  learned  to  apply  it  discriminatingly  in  dealing 
with  the  history  of  particular  periods,  or  tracing 
the  inception  and  progress  of  great  and  enduring 
movements  in  the  thought  and  lives  of  men. 

If  the  18th  century  was  not  marked  by  any  great 
original  movement  in  theology,  it  was  still  a  period 
of  very  considerable  intellectual  activity  along  cer- 
tain lines  of  doctrinal  speculation.  The  ablest 
minds,  while  fairly  content  with  general  results  of 
the  earlier  creative  period  of  the  Reformation,  were 
sedulously  striving  to  systematize  and  reduce  to 
scholastic  form  the  essential  elements  of  the  com- 
mon Protestant  outline  ;  but  each  one,  of  course,  in 
his  own  way,  and  from  his  own  individual  point  of 


20 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


view.  This  led  to  many  minute  inquiries  and 
hair-splitting  distinctions,  very  much  after  the  man- 
ner of  the  older  scholastics,  which  we  are  apt  in 
this  more  practical  age  to  set  aside  as  useless. 
Among  these  nice  and  sometimes  puzzling  dis- 
tinctions, must  be  reckoned  much  that  was  said  and 
written  on  the  nature  of  faith,  especially  "  saving- 
faith,  99  and  precisely  how  this  faith  is  related  to 
justification,  so  that,  although  it  must  be  conceded 
to  be,  in  some  sense,  the  act  of  the  creature,  yet 
the  doctrine  of  grace  is  not  impaired  by  making  it 
the  sole  human  ground  of  divine  acceptance.  In 
this  special  field,  Glas  and  Sandeman,  from  our 
distant  point  of  view,  appear  to  have  been  adven- 
turous pioneers,  leading  bravely  out  into  what 
doubtless,  seemed  to  them  to  be  the  most  promis- 
ing paths  of  inquiry  which  the  researches  of  the 
fathers  of  Protestantism  had  left  open  to  their  de- 
scendants. They  were  keen  thinkers,  if  not  pro- 
found, and  their  speculations,  though  often  un- 
fruitful, as  judged  by  the  standard  of  our  times, 
must  be  admitted  to  have  been  ingenious,  and 
sometimes  absolutely  convincing.  They  did  more 
than  attract  the  attention  of  the  best  thinkers  ;  they 
made  a  marked  impression  upon  the  thought  of 
their  age.  But  Sandemanianism,  as  the  system 
came  to  be  designated,  was  not  limited  to  ingenious 
speculations  concerning  the  nature  of  faith  and 
justification,  but  embraced  the  more  practical  ques- 
tions of  the  organization  and  order  of  the  churches 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


21 


in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  while  yet  under 
their  personal  instruction  and  authoritative  guid- 
ance. 

They  saw  that  there  had  been  no  unbroken  line 
of  continuity  in  the  outward  succession  of  history. 
Comparing  the  organization  and  order  of  the  church- 
es of  their  own  time  with  what  they  read  plainly 
in  the  New  Testament,  they  saw  that  a  very  great 
change  had  taken  place.  There  were  no  state 
churches  in  the  beginning.  And  this  was  not  sim- 
ply that  the  secular  administrations  of  the  period 
were  unchristian,  or  anti-christian.  They  felt  that 
neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  would  have  toler- 
ated for  a  moment  the  idea  of  an  Established  Church. 
With  Glas,  this  had  been  the  original  point  of  de- 
parture from  the  beaten  path  of  his  fathers.  But 
the  Bishops  and  clergy,  the  reverend  ministers  of 
all  the  received  orthodoxies,  were  quite  distinct  in 
their  order  and  official  relations  from  the  simple 
and  unostentatious  Bishops  and  Evangelists  of  the 
New  Testament.  They  insisted,  therefore,  upon  a 
reconstruction  in  harmony  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures.  In  this  contention  the  day  of 
judgment  will  undoubtedly  vindicate  their  wisdom 
and  faithfulness,  even  though  some  men  may  think 
they  were  misled  by  an  overstrained  "literalism" 
in  the  attempts  which  they  made  to  realize  their 
conception  of  the  constitution  of  the  original  church- 
es of  Christ.  Why  should  it  be  thought  a  vicious 
"  literalism  "  to  adhere  closely  to  primitive  prece- 


22 


ORIGIN"  OF  THE 


dents  in  the  matter  of  organization  and  order,  as 
well  as  in  other  things  !  Especially,  one  is  tempt- 
ed to  ask,  why  should  Baptists  urge  such  a  view 
as  this  I  The  Baptists,  whose  sole  distinction  al- 
most relates  to  the  ordinances  ?  Are  the  ordinances 
everything,  and  the  original  order  nothing  ?  "Why 
then  do  Baptists  talk  about  their*  '-faith  and  order!" 
Or  is  it  so,  that  rigidness  as  to  the  subject  and 
"mode*'  of  Baptism  must  be  maintained  at  all  haz- 
ards, but  that  the  office,  and  relations  to  the 
churches,  of  the  divinely  constituted  Bishops,  Dea- 
cons and  Evangelists  is  judged  of  no  importance  at 
all  {  If  this  be  so.  why  is  it  so  ?  On  what  ground 
is  rigidness  demanded  in  one  case,  and  any  desir- 
able laxity  admitted  in  the  other?  What  is  the 
exact  limit,  beyond  which,  "  literalism"  in  follow- 
ing the  apostles  ceases  to  be  a  virtue  \  Or  is  this 
the  explanation — viz:  that  Prof.  AVhitsitt  thinks 
the  Baptists  are  in  line  with  the  apostles  on  the 
ordinances,  and  knows  that,  on  the  questions  of  or- 
ganization and  worship,  they  are  to  some  extent 
out  of  harmony  with  them  {  This  I  suppose  to  be 
the  true  reason  in  spite  of  the  sneers  at  an  unde- 
fined ••literalism*'  by  means  of  which  he  seeks  to 
conceal  the  fact  in  the  case. 

But  Glas  and  Sandemanran  their  course  without 
accomplishing  anything  which  could  be  called 
epoch-making  in  its  character.  They  lived  and 
died  Pedobaptists,  and  also  rigid  Calvinists.    It  is 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


23 


of  the  last  importance  that  the  reader  should  not 
forget  these  facts  for  a  single  moment.  He  should 
need  nothing  more  to  keep  him  from  being  misled 
in  the  matter  now  under  discussion. 

Prof.  Whitsitt  will  find  it  impossible  to  make 
intelligent  Disciples  feel  the  least  respect  for  his 
attempt  to  trace  their  origin  to  such  an  unlikely 
source.  Nor  will  he  be  able  to  persuade  well-in- 
formed outsiders  that  there  is  even  honest  plausi- 
bility in  his  partisan  contention.  What  he  may 
succeed  in  impressing  upon  certain  portions  of  his 
Baptist  constituency,  is,  indeed,  another  question, 
but  one  of  no  very  great  importance.  Only  those 
who  have  an  u  unction  from  the  Holy  One  "  are 
proof  against  the  wiles  of  partisans,  and  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ  should  be  prepared  to  "  endure  con- 
tradiction "  in  the  spirit  of  their  divine  Master. 

After  the  Sandemanians,  we  are  asked  to  find 
our  ecclesiastical  lineage  in  the  Scottish  Baptists 
— "so  called."  The  order  of  progress  is  assumed 
to  be ;  firstly,  the  Sandemanians ;  secondly,  the 
Scotch  Baptists ;  thirdly,  "the  Disciples  of  Christ, 
commonly  called  Cainpbellites."  Indeed  these 
Scottish  Baptists  are  not  really  Baptists  at  all, 
but  only  "  Sandemanians  of  the  immersion  observ- 
ance." This  is  no  doubt  a  very  clever  phrase,  and 
we  should  take  pleasure  in  giving  its  inventor  due 
credit.  Let  us  hope  there  is  no  one  entitled  to 
contest  Mr.  Whitsitt's  claim  to  originality  in  this 
case.    But  then  why  not  let  us  speak  of  the  Bap- 


24 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


tists  in  this  country  as  "  Congregationalists  of  the 
immersion  observance,"  while  their  New  England 
congeners  are  styled  "  Congregationalists  of  the 
aspersion  observance  ? "  Such  a  mode  of  designa- 
tion would  be  quite  as  plausible,  certainly,  and  not 
a  particle  less  worthy  the  respect  of  truth-loving 
men.  The  points  of  agreement  between  Baptists 
and  Congregationalists  are  quite  as  numerous, 
while  those  of  difference  are  as  few,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Sandemanians  and  Baptists  of  Scotland. 
Nor  are  the  differences  more  important  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other.  With  all  fair-minded  peo- 
ple, this  statement  will  be  accepted  without  a 
moment's  hesitation.  And,  if  the  Scotch  Baptists 
were  only  "Sandemanians  of  the  immersion  obser- 
vance, "  then  the  American  Baptists  are  no  more 
than  Congregationalists,  who  have  been  dipped  by 
an  administrator  who  had  himself  been  duly 
dipped  by  some  one  else !  How  far  the  line  of 
dipped  administrators  extends  backward  towards 
the  apostles,  neither  Prof.  Whitsitt  nor  any  other 
Baptist  could  tell,  if  his  salvation  depended  upon 
it.  There  are  some  things  that  one  finds  it  hard 
to  treat  with  respectful  consideration.  And  if  any 
dear  Baptist  brother,  who  loves  Christ  and  the 
truth  more  than  he  loves  his  party,  should  think 
I  have  written  any  words  here  in  style  too  flippant 
for  grave  themes,  let  him  remember  that  all  such 
words  are  to  be  strictly  limited  to  the  author  of 
this  book  and  the  bellicose  class  of  Baptists  to 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


25 


which  he  properly  belongs.  As  regards  the  Scotch 
Baptists,  they  agreed  in  a  general  sense  with  the 
Sandemanians  concerning  the  "nature  of  saving 
faith,"  and  they  followed  the  New  Testament,  as 
did  also  the  Sandemanians,  both  in  the  matter  of 
church  organization  and  in  observing  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  part  of  the  worship  on  the  Lord's  day. 
If  this  made  them  Sandemanians,  then  I  insist  that 
the  Baptists  of  the  United  States  are  simply  English 
Puritans  modified  by  local  influences,  and  the  per- 
sonal idiosyncracies  of  their  partisan  leaders.  If 
the  Scotch  Baptists  were  narrow  literalists  in  some 
of  their  notions  concerning  the  invariable  order  of 
worship  on  the  Lord's  day,  their  American  cousins 
are  quite  as  narrow,  and  scarcely  less  the  slaves 
of  "  the  letter  "  in  restricting  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
their  churches  to  those  who  belong  to  the  Baptist 
"  order,"  or  hold  membership  in  distinctively  Bap- 
tist churches.  The  reproach  of  narrowness,  or 
servile  literalism,  comes  with  poor  grace  from 
Baptists  of  the  Graves  and  Hay  school,  to  which 
the  author  of  this  book  seems  properly  to  belong. 

But,  still,  the  Disciples  are  "  an  off-shoot  of  the 
Sandemanian  sect  of  Scotland,"  writes  Prof.  Wliit- 
sitt,  with  imperturbable  gravity.  It  seems  neces- 
sary to  look  at  this  affirmation  more  narrowly 
than  we  have  hitherto  done.  First  of  all,  let  us 
ask,  what,  in  such  a  connection,  does  the  word 
"offshoot?"  imply?    It  may  be  well  to  let  Noah 


26 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


Webster  answer  this  question.  His  definition  is 
exceedingly  clear : 

uOffshoot,  n.  (Prom  off  and  shoot.)  That  which 
shoots  off  or  separates  from  a  main  stem  or  chan- 
nel ;  as  the  offshoots  of  a  tree  :  'The  offshoots  of 
the  Gulf  stream.'  J.  D.  Forbes." 

This  can  not  be  improved  upon  by  lexicographic 
skill.  It  is  perfect  on  the  very  surface.  But  in 
the  light  of  it,  let  us  look  at  Prof.  Whitsitt's  his- 
torical dictum.  Were  the  Disciples  ever  con- 
nected with  the  Sandemanian  sect,  or  any  branch 
of  such  sect  ?  Never,  never !  Thomas  and  Alex- 
ander Campbell  were  in  the  beginning,  Presby- 
terians of  the  very  strictest  persuasion,  nor  had 
they  departed  widely  from  their  ancestral  tradi- 
tions up  to  the  day  of  their  immersion  by  a  regu- 
larly ordained  Baptist  preacher.  Some  time  after 
that  event,  the  church  of  which  they  were  mem- 
bers was  formally  received  into  the  fellowship  of 
the  Redstone  association  of  Baptists,  within  the 
geographical  limits  of  which  it  was  located.  As 
a  simple  matter  of  historical  fact,  they  remained 
in  connection  with  the  Baptist  peoj^le  as  long  as 
they  were  permitted  to  do  so.  Touching  the  cause 
of  their  separation,  I  need  say  nothing  here.  But 
I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  in  passing,  that  the 
founding  of  a  distinct  people  was  no  part  of  their 
plan.  They  did  not  judge  it  desirable,  however 
calmly  they  accepted  the  inevitable,  when  it  came. 
They  wanted  no  new  order.    There  were  divisions 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


27 


enough  already.  They  deprecated  what  might 
seem  to  the  world  like  the  formation  of  a  new  sect. 
Their  whole  end  and  purpose  was  anti-sectarian 
from  the  very  beginning.  They  may  not  have 
been  always  wise,  for  that  is  not  given  to  men  in 
the  flesh.  But  of  their  general  soundness  of  judg- 
ment on  New  Testament  questions,  and  their  hon- 
est intent  to  serve  the  great  interests  of  truth  and 
righteousness,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt.  If  men 
will  be  just,  not  partisan,  to  this  conclusion  must 
they  come  at  last.  There  have  indeed  been  large- 
minded  Baptists,  in  later  times  (perhaps  not 
many,  but  still  some),  who  have  thought  that  a 
satisfactory  modus  Vivendi  was  not  impossible, 
and  that  with  a  more  generous  toleration  on  the 
part  of  the  Baptists  than  was  common  in  those 
days,  there  need  have  been  no  division  at  all. 
Upon  these  questions  I  need  not  enter.  They  matter 
nothing,  here  or  there,  in  the  present  investigation. 
Nor  do  the  Disciples  make  any  complaint  to-day, 
however  it  may  have  been  when  the  ties  of  love 
and  fellowship  were  being  rudely  sundered  by 
what  they  then  regarded  as  a  most  unchristian  in- 
tolerance. Our  fathers  accepted  the  situation,  be- 
cause they  could  not  help  themselves,  albeit  un- 
willingly, and  we  now  regard  it  as  having  been 
Providential.  AVe  shall  perform  our  much- needed 
work  in  the  world,  under  God,  far  more  effectively 
than  we  could  have  done,  in  tTie  face  of  obstructive 
tactics,  in  any  ecclesiastical  connection  with  the 


28 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


Baptists.  The  day  is  sure  to  come  when  it  will 
be  otherwise;  but  it  is  scarcely  here  yet.  God 
grant  it  may  not  be  far  distant.  But  if  the  chron- 
icles of  those  tumultuous  times  have  correctly 
reached  us,  our  fathers,  as  I  have  said,  did  not  go 
out  of  their  own  accord.  They  would  fain  have 
suffered  much,  rather  than  cut  loose  from  dear  fel- 
lowships in  Christ,  and  set  adrift  from  their  old 
ecclesiastical  moorings.  They  did  not  shoot  off  at 
all ;  they  were  driven  off.  True,  the  Mahoning 
association,  to  which  the  Campbells  belonged, 
when  the  separation  was  actually  taking  place, 
may  be  said  to  have  gone  bodily  into  the  reform 
movement.  But  it  had  been  a  regular  Baptist  as- 
sociation. This  is  not  disputed.  Nor  was  any 
considerable  section  of  the  Disciples  ever  in  con- 
nection with  the  Sandemanians.  Individuals 
doubtless  came  into  the  movement  from  Sande- 
manian  congregations,  as  there  were  those  who 
came  into  it  from  all  denominations,  Catholic  and 
Protestant.  Leaders  among  the  Scotch  Baptists, 
and  Scotch  Baptist  churches,  whether  in  the  old 
world  or  new,  would  more  naturally  seek  fellow- 
ship and  association  with  the  Disciples  than  with 
their  American  cousins  of  the  Baptist  name,  when- 
ever they  could  be  persuaded  to  surrender  the 
straight-laced  Calvinism  in  which  they  had  been 
reared,  because,  in  the  matter  of  organization  and 
worship,  they  were  'sure  of  a  more  sympathetic  re- 
ception.   Doubtless  such  affiliations  took  place,  not 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


29 


unfrequently,  in  the  earlier  years  of  our  history  as 
a  distinct  people.  But  as  a  mere  matter  of  fact,  the 
Disciples  were  never  in  ecclesiastic  connection 
with  any  Sandemanian  party,  and  could  not  possi- 
bly, therefore,  have  shot  off  from  "the  Sande- 
manian sect." 

The  truth  is,  we  are  not  an  offshoot  at  all.  As 
a  people  in  mutual  fellowship,  we  have  been  gath- 
ered from  all  quarters  of  the  great  Babel  of  mod- 
ern sect-dom  by  the  acceptance  of  the  most  catho- 
lic and  Christian  basis  of  fellowship  that  the 
world  has  known  since  the  rise  of  the  original 
apostasy.  We  feel  ourselves  able  to  make  this 
affirmation  good  in  any  forum,  and  in  the  face  of 
any  foe.  But  of  this  even  we  do  not  boast.  We 
have  nothing  that  we  have  not  received  from  God, 
and  to  him  we  give  the  glory.  Paul  is  nothing, 
Apollos  is  nothing ,  God,  the  giver  of  all  good,  is 
alone  entitled  to  the  praise.  We  are  not  an  "  off- 
shoot "  from  any  sect.  The  Campbells  came  to 
our  present  ground  from  the  Presbyterians,  by 
way  of  the  Baptists.  B.  W.  Stone,  and  hosts  of 
others,  came  from  the  Presbyterians,  through  the 
"  old  Christian "  movement.  John  T.  Johnson, 
John  Smith,  (and  there  has  only  been  one  John 
Smith  after  all),  the  Mortons.  Crearhs,  and  multi- 
tudes of  others,  great  and  small,  came  out,  or  were 
cast  out,  from  the  Associated  Baptists,  because 
they  could  not  rest  content  with  the  fellowship  of 
a  narrow  sect,  when  they  felt  the  uplifting  power 


30  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

of  Christ's  prayer  for  the  unity  of  his  people  in 
the  holy  communion  of  a  universal  Christian 
brotherhood.    God  have  mercy  on  those  who  could 
so  rest  content  !    It  is  to  be  told  to  the  eternal 
honor  of  the  men  I  have  named,  that  they  belonged 
not  to  that  class.    There  is  no  people  on  earth  to- 
day, who  are  so  clearly  no  "offshoot,"  as  Webster 
defines  the  word,  from  any  sect  that  ever  existed, 
as   the  Disciples  of  Christ — according  to  Prof. 
Whitsitt,  "more  commonly  called  Campbellites  !" 
There  had  been,  as  in  every  other  movement  of 
great  magnitude  and  enduring  character,  a  long- 
period  of  preparation.    The  souls  of  men  had  been 
anxiously  studying  the  most  vital  problems  of  the 
common  faith,  and  the  current  teaching  had  no 
solution  to  offer  which  could  be  accepted  as  satis- 
factory.   The  usual  presentations  of  the  way  of 
life  and  salvation  were  far  removed  from  the  sim- 
plicity and  tangibility  of  the  New  Testament 
period.    The  ready  appropriation  of  Christ  as 
Savior,  which  was  so  marked  a  feature  of  the  apos- 
tolic era,  had  been  lost  utterly.    Men  were  grop- 
ing their  ways  in  darkness,  where  at  first  all  had 
been  light  and  blessedness.    They  found  them- 
selves bewildered  by  subtle  distinctions  impossi- 
ble to  minds  untrained  in  religious  metaphysics. 
On  one  side  of  them  was  the  bane  of  formalism, 
and  on  the  other  the  upas  of  mysticism.    For  the 
basis  of  their  personal  assurance  of  salvation, 
they  had  been  compelled  to  fall  back  on  emotional 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


31 


experiences,  which  sober  common  sense — when- 
ever they  gave  it  free  and  honest  play — told  them 
were  quite  as  untrustworthy  as  the  fantastic  stuff 
of  which  dreams  are  made.  No  wonder  they  felt 
themselves  impelled  to  seek  after  the  "  old  paths," 
that  they  might  find  once  more  the  peace  which  in 
the  hearts  of  the  first  Christians,  had  been  an 
everfiowing  river.  If  Glas  and  Sandeman  and 
M'Leau  were  among  the  leaders  who  sought  re- 
lief from  current  perplexities  in  speculation,  and 
current  phantasms  of  experience,  by  a  thorough 
study,  de  novo,  of  the  apostolic  gospel,  and  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  first  Christians,  then  there  is  no 
higher  title  to  enduring  honor  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  than  that  to  which  they  may  lay  humble, 
but  honest  claim.  It  is  to  be  frankly  conceded 
that,  to  some  extent  at  least,  this  honor  is  due  to 
them.  And  in  so  far  as  they  may  have  con- 
tributed, however  indirectly,  to  shape  the  most 
fruitful  movement  of  our  modern  period,  the  day  of 
eternity  will  decree  them  full  reward.  Heaven 
forbid  that  we  should  claim  for  the  Campbells, 
and  Stones,  and  Johnsons,  and  Smiths,  of  our  own 
day,  the  honor  which  rightfully  belongs  to  others. 
If  Alexander  Campbell  built  upon  a  foundation 
which  other  men  had  laid,  let  him  have  simply  the 
credit  which  is  his  due.  But  truth  is  no  more 
divine,  no  less  effectual  to  salvation,  whether 
M'Lean  or  Campbell  first  brought  it  to  the  light 
again,  in  these  ends  of  the  ages.    If  Sandeman 


32 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


and  M'Lean  saw  what  truth  they  did  see  but 
dimly,  it  should  not  be  thought  strange.  If  Camp- 
bell saw  more  truth,  and  saw  it  more  clearly,  it 
does  not  make  him  greater  or  better  than  they. 
Truth  has  always  made  its  way  through  difficul- 
ties, and  its  celestial  shape  has  never  greeted  the 
eyes  of  men,  save  through  the  mists  and  fogs 
which  evermore  enwrap  our  nether  world.  If 
Sandeman  or  M'Lean  is  the  real  leader  to  whom 
our  divine  movement  owes  its  origin,  be  it  so. 
Who  cares?  This  is  not  especially  a  question  of 
whom,  but  of  what  ?  Not  who  began  the  work, 
humanly  speaking,  but,  is  it  of  God?  Save  for 
this  single  question,  we  care  not  a  farthing.  If 
our  origin  could  really  be  traced  in  fairness  to 
Robert  Sandeman,  it  would  not  give  us  a  moment's 
concern.  Who  is  Sandeman?  Who  is  Campbell? 
All  truth  is  of  God ;  and  whether  Sandeman  or 
Campbell  proclaim  it,  God's  truth  shall  stand  for- 
ever. This  is  simply  a  question  of  priority  in  dis- 
covery. It  has,  at  most,  that  value,  and  not  a 
scruple  more.  Please  let  all  the  Whitsitt's  in  the 
world  understand  how  little  the  issue  they  have 
raised  affects  our  confidence  in  the  truth  we  plead. 
We  hold  it,  and  plead  it,  not  because  it  is  from 
Campbell,  or  is  supposed  by  some  partisan  to 
have  been  advocated  by  Sandeman,  but  because  it 
is  from  God,  and  shall  stand  the  ordeal  of  the  last 
day! 


DISCIPLES  OF  CUEIST 


33 


CHAPTER  III. 

AN  HISTORICAL  SKETCH. 

It  is  not  proposed  to  follow  our  author  into  the 
minute,  and,  for  the  most  part,  insignificant  matters 
of  detail,  into  which  he  has  seen  fit  to  enter  at  great 
length ;  in  the  first  place,  because  a  discussion  of 
these  details  is  not  needed,  and,  in  the  second 
place,  because  the  purpose  I  have  in  view  may  be 
better  accomplished  in  another  way.  An  inde- 
pendent statement  of  the  chief  historical  points 
preliminary  to  our  discussion  will  be  more  satis- 
factory to  seekers  after  truth  than  an  examination, 
seriatim,  of  statements,  often  unimportant,  and, 
generally  irrelevant  to  the  main  issue. 

"  No  man,"  says  Paul,  "  liveth  or  dieth  to  him- 
self. "  We  are  inseparable  parts  of  a  total  hu- 
manity, in  spite  of  individual  self-assertion  within 
narrow  limits.  No  man  has  ever  lived  whose  char- 
acter and  achievements  were  not  determined,  to  a 
great  extent,  by  the  conditions  in  the  midst  of 
which  his  individual  lot  was  cast.  We  can  not 
wholly  escape  our  environment,  though  we  exert 
ourselves  ever  so  strenuously.  The  cultivated  man 
of  to-day  is  indeed  the  heir  of  all  the  ages.  The 
great  tides  of  life  and  thought  come  rushing  in  up- 
on us  from  the  past,  and  we  cannot  shut  them  off, 

if  we  would.    Even  that  which  is  peculiar  to  us  as 
3 


34 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


individuals,  that  which  we  bring  with  us  into  the 
world,  has  been  shaping  itself  through  centuries  of 
varied  experience,  along  the  almost  infinitely  ex- 
tended lines  of  our  personal  ancestry.  Apart  from 
all  possible  inferences,  these  facts  are  simply  un- 
deniable. Luther,  Calvin,  Wesley,  Campbell  and 
all  the  world's  great  leaders,  have  been  as  much 
under  the  moulding  influence  of  this  great  divine 
law  as  the  men  supposed  to  have  been  made  of 
more  common  clay. 

We  go,  therefore,  to  the  prevailing  tendencies, 
to  the  great  controlling  drifts  of  religious  thought 
among  the  dissenting  Protestants  of  Great  Britain, 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  that 
we  may  discover  what  were  the  influences  in  the 
midst  of  which  Alexander  Campbell  was  born  and 
educated,  and  determine  how  far  his  individual  de- 
velopment was  moulded  by  these  influences,  and 
also  to  what  extent  they  contributed  to  give  shape 
and  character  to  the  movement  which  was  the  in- 
spiration of  his  remarkable  life.  I  have  said  "dis- 
senting Protestants,"  because  the  intellectual  cur- 
rents in  the  established  church  were  somewhat  dif- 
ferent, and,  in  any  event,  have  little  to  do  with  the 
subject  before  us. 

Among  dissenters,  especially  those  known,  in  a 
general  way,  as  Independents,  whether  Baptist 
or  Pedo-baptist,  the  period  I  have  indicated  was 
eminently  formative.  There  were  sharp  discus- 
sions, tinged  sometimes  with  bitterness,  but  the 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


35 


various  influences  and  counter-influences  were  at 
work,  which  ultimately  imparted  to  them  the  theo- 
logical trend  and  ecclesiastical  forms  that  charac- 
terize, in  the  main,  their  descendants  at  the  present 
time.  In  this  period,  Sandeman,  Booth,  Fuller  and 
M'Lean,  touched  the  high-water  mark  of  their  in- 
tellectual activity.  At  the  same  time,  also,  John 
Wesley  was  at  the  height  of  his  wonderful  career. 
And  although  his  influence  lay,  for  the  most  part, 
rather  outside  tlie  lines  of  progress  which  mainly 
concern  our  inquiry,  yet,  indirectly,  the  religious 
thought  of  all  sections  of  the  Island,  and  all  types 
of  thinkers,  were  more  or  less  affected.  We  can- 
not afford,  therefore,  to  leave  him  wholly  out  of 
this  brief  survey. 

Among  the  questions  of  special  significance  in 
this  period,  the  most  important,  theologically,  as  I 
have  already  intimated,  was  that  concerning  the 
nature  of  "saving  faith."  But  closely  related  to 
this,  and  scarcely  less  important  to  our  present  in- 
vestigation, was  a  question  as  to  the  theological 
ground  on  which  faith  becomes  the  principle  of 
justification  under  the  gospel.  Let  us  seek  briefly 
to  get  at  the  very  pith  of  these  old-time  controver- 
sies. Let  us  lose  sight,  if  we  can,  of  any  bearing 
which  our  historical  facts  may  have  on  present 
issues,  or  the  theological  standing  of  parties  to 
present  issues,  for  only  thus  shall  we  attain  to  that 
judicial  impartiality  which  this  investigation  im- 


36  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

peratively  demands.  Truth  is  everything,  party  is 
nothing. 

To  begin  with  John  Wesley.  He  was,  as  the 
reader  is  presumed  to  know,  a  member  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church  of  England.  Early  in  life,  he  was 
greatly  exercised  over  the  indifference  and  impiety, 
not  only  of  the  laity  of  the  Establishment,  but  of 
the  very  ministers  of  the  sanctuary  itself.  He  was 
thus  led  to  organize,  at  Oxford,  a  little  society, 
having  for  its  object  the  promotion  of  godliness. 
This  society  soon  came  to  be  spoken  of  among  the 
irreligious  as  "Wesley's  godly  club,''  and  Prof. 
Whitsitt  lends  his  sanction  to  this  sneer — let  us 
hope  unintentionally — in  referring  to  it  by  that 
designation.  Afterwards  Wesley  went  as  a  mis- 
sionary to  Georgia  along  with  Gen.  Oglethorpe,  the 
founder  of  that  colony.  On  the  voyage  out  the 
vessel  in  which  he  sailed  encountered  a  terrible 
storm,  and  Wesley,  though  an  ordained  priest  in 
the  Established  Church,  became  greatly  frightened. 
In  the  same  company  were  some  Moravian  mission- 
aries, whose  superior  calmnness  greatly  impressed 
him.  Naturally,  he  was  led  to  suspect  some  defect 
in  his  religious  life,  though  it  does  not  appear  that 
any  change  took  place  in  his  religious  views  or  ex- 
periences until  after  he  had  returned  to  England. 
Meantime,  however,  he  had  laid  the  foundation  of 
his  great  life-work  in  America.  Among  his  ac- 
quaintances at  Oxford  at  this  period  was  Peter 
Bohler,  a  Moravian  preacher.    Charles  Wesley  had 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


37 


undertaken  to  teach  Bohler  the  English  language, 
and  Peter,  to  repay  one  favor  with  another,  straight- 
way proceeded  to  teach  Charles  the  Moravian  the- 
ology. This  was  about  the  20th  of  February,  1738. 
On  the  21st  day  of  May,  Whitsunday,  Charles 
Wesley  ''obtained  the  sense  of  adoption,"  whatever 
that  may  mean  (for  the  New  Testament  furnishes 
no  equivalent  expression),  and  "just  one  week 
later,"  as  a  trustworthy  chronicler  tells  us,  "his 
brother  John  obtained  the  same  blessing.  "  We 
are  farther  informed  that  "  Bohler,  aided  by  the 
testimony  of  several  living  witnesses,  convinced 
him  that  to  gain  peace  of  mind  he  must  renounce 
that  dependence  upon  his  own  works  which  had 
hitherto  been  the  bane  of  his  experience,  and  re- 
place it  with  a  full  reliance  on  the  blood  of  Christ 
shed  for  Mm"  At  a  Moravian  society  meeting  in 
Aldersgate  street,  while  one  was  reading  Luther's 
statement  of  the  change  which  God  works  in  the 
heart  through  faith,  Wesley  himself  says,  "  I  felt 
my  heart  strangely  warmed.  I  felt  I  did  trust  in 
Christ  alone  for  salvation ;  and  an  assurance  was 
given  me,  that  he  had  taken  away  my  sin,  even 
mine,  and  saved  me  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death." 

These  words  deserve  especial  attention.  They 
show  us  that  the  notion  of  a  sensuous  revelation  of 
pardon,  considered  as  an  element  of  saving  faith, 
came  to  John  Wesley,  and  through  him  to  Method- 
ism, from  the  Moravian  mystics.  One  can  not 
help  wondering  what  would  have  been  the  effect 


•1< 


OfelGW  0*  THE 


upon  the  movement  we  now  call  Methodism,  if 
Wesley's  course  had  (••-••n  wrought  out  free  from 
contact  with  these  excellent,  bat  highly  imagina- 
tive people.  To  Wesley  himself,  this  Aldersgate 
street  experience  was  conversion  to  Christ.  Before 
that  time  he  had  not  known  Christ  as  his  Savior. 
From  this  conviction.  I  presume, lie  never  wavered. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  many  Method- 
ist preach i -rs  so  understand  it  do-day.  Had  John 
Wesley  died  before  that  notable  event  in  his  life, 
what  would  have  been  his  fate  ?  Ah  !  well !  Let 
us  hope  that  everyone  sees  things  more  clearly 
now.    God  grant  it  may  be  so  ! 

It  was  a  member  of  Mr.  Wesley's  Oxford  Society, 
James  Heivey,  as  Prof.  Whitsitt  correctly  informs 
us,  that  wrote  the  i;  Dialogues  between  Theron  and 
Aspasio."  The  leading  feature  of  this  work  was 
the  setting  forth  of  the  Methodist-Moravian  concep- 
tion of  saving  faith,  and  the  experimental  processes 
through  which  "the  sense  of  adoption  "'  is  obtain- 
ed. To  this  work  of  Hervey,  Robert  Sandeman  re- 
plied. He  took  the  ground  of  the  Westminster 
divines,  but  went  further,  bravely  insisting  not 
only  that  "assurance  is  not  inseparable  from  sav- 
ing faith,"  but  that  it  is  really  no  part  of  saving 
faith,  in  any  case.  That  is,  the  faith  which  saves, 
and  the  assurance  of  salvation,  are  distinct  in  con- 
sciousne>s,  and  that  the  latter  necessarily  depends 
on  the  former.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  conscious- 
ness  of  faith  in  Christ  is  the  prior  condition  of  con- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


39 


scions  salvation.  This  I  give  as  the  substance, 
without  caring  to  quote  words.  To  the  extent  here 
stated,  Abraham  Booth,  apparently,  and  Andrew 
Puller,  certainly,  agreed  with  him.  It  is  necessary 
to  bear  this  in  mind,  for  Prof.  Whitsitt, seemingly, 
would  make  the  impression  that  while  the  Scotch 
Baptists,  whom  he  treats  as  Sandemanians  pure 
and  simple,  agreed  with  Sandeman  regarding  the 
natuvi  of  faith,  other  Baptists  did  not.  But  Fuller 
and  Sandeman  did  not  differ  on  the  nature  of  faith. 
On  this  question  they  agreed  perfectly.  They  dif- 
fered of  course  about  other  matters,  but  the  agree- 
ment concerning  the  nature  of  faith  must  not  be 
lost  sight  of,  if  we  would  have  a  clear  view  of  the 
historic  situation. 

Now,  among  Baptists  of  the  eighteenth  century 
no  name  is  more  justly  held  in  veneration  than  that 
of  Andrew  Fuller.  To  this  all  Baptists  agree.  He 
was  in  fact  the  leader  of  progressive  Baptists  in 
England,  just  as  M'Lean  was  easily  leader  of  the 
Baptists  of  Scotland.  The  exact  differences  be- 
tween these  distinguished  men,  as  representing  dif- 
ferences between  two  sections  of  the  Baptist  church 
militant,  in  their  day,  become  important  to  us  here, 
on  account  of  their  relation  to  the  chief  question 
which  Prof.  Whitsitt  has  raised.  And  as  M'Lean 
confessedly  agreed  with  Sandeman  in  the  contro- 
versies regarding  faith,  I  shall  draw  on  him  for 
what  information  is  needed  on  that  side  of  the 
question.    Prof.  Whitsitt  will  not  object  to  this. 


40 


OFJUIN  OF  THE 


Our  comparison,  therefore,  will  be  between  M'- 
Lean  and  Fuller.  In  the  lirst  place,  we  shall  hear 
Fuller,  the  Baptist  par  excellence,  as  he  is  regard- 
ed among  American  Baptists  to-day. 

In  his  preface  to  his  "  Gospel  worthy  of  all  Ac- 
ceptation," Mr.  Fuller  tells  us  that  "he  had  for- 
merly held  different  sentiments  "  from  those  advo- 
cated in  that  book.  For  years,  however,  he  had 
been  in  doubt.  These  doubts  had  arisen  chiefly 
from  thinking  upon  certain  passages  of  Scripture 
which  seemed  clearly  to  imply  that  repentance  and 
fa i tii  are  the  "immediate  duty"  of  all  men  to 
whom  the  gospel  offer  of  salvation  comes.  This  is 
the  main  thesis  of  his  book,  and  his  statement,  on 
its  very  face,  shows  the  Antinomian  tendencies 
which  he  had  formerly  cherished.  But  besides  the 
Scripture  texts,  the  reading  of  the  labors  of  Elliot, 
Brainerd,  and  others,  who  had  been  eminently  suc- 
cessful among  the  American  Indians,  had  greatly 
impressed  him.  Like  the  apostles,  the  work  of 
these  men  seemed  to  be  plain  before  them.  In 
"  their  addresses  to  these  benighted  heathen,  they 
seemed  to  have  none  of  the  difficulties  with  which 
he  felt  himself  encumbered. "  That  is  to  say,  he 
had  been  a  very  narrow  Calvinist,  and  his  theories 
of  inability,  passive  regeneration,  limited  atone- 
ment, etc.,  had  been  in  his  way.  Besides,  he  had 
regarded  appropriation  as  being  of  the  very  es- 
sence of  saving  faith,  so  that,  without  a  s"ort  of 
special  revelation,  no  one  could  be  a  true  believer ; 


DISCIPLES  01  CHRIST. 


41 


or  indeed  had  a  warrant  to  believe.  But  slowly  lie 
was  beginning  to  see  light.  For  four  years  lie 
wrestled  with  his  doubts,  disclosing  them  to  no  one. 
"  Once  in  company  with  a  minister,  whom  he  great- 
ly respected  (could  he  have  been  a  Sandemanian 
minister?),  "it  was  thrown  out  as  a  matter  of  in- 
quiry, Whether  we  had  generally  entertained  just 
notions  concerning  unbelief.  It  was  common  to 
speak  of  unbelief  as  a  calling  in  question  the  truth 
of  our  personal  religion ;  whereas,  he  remarked, 
'It  was  the  calling  in  question  the  truth  of  what 
God  had  said.'  "This  remark,"  Fuller  says, 
"  seemed  to  carry  in  ijt  its  own  evidence."  Pend- 
ing questions  of  "origins"  and  "offshoots,"  we  can 
not  but  regret  that  the  name  of  this  sensible  minis- 
ter has  been  withheld  from  us.  Alexander  Camp- 
bell once  intimated  a  suspicion  that  Fuller  had 
learned  the  best  things  he  knew  from  the  Sande- 
manian s,  and  though  Fuller  tells  us  that  at  this 
time  he  had  not  read  Sandeman's  writings,  it  is  not 
at  all  impossible  that  the  excellent  minister  in 
question  had  both  read  them,  and  profited  by  them. 
In  any  event,  the  incident  here  recorded  let  the  first 
glimmer  of  the  new  light  into  Fuller's  soul.  From 
the  point  of  view  thus  attained,  "his  thoughts,"  he 
tells  us,  "began  to  enlarge."  He  preached  upon 
the  subject  "more  than  once."  Finally,  he  began 
"to  consider  faith  as  a  persuasion  of  the  truth  of 
what  God  hath  said."  He  was  "  aware  that  the 
generality  of  Christians   with  whom  he  was  ac- 


42 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


cjuainted  viewed  the  belief  of  the  gospel  as  some- 
thing pre-supposed  in  faith,  rather  than  as  being 
of  the  essence  of  it ;  and  considered  the  contrary 
as  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Robert  Sandeman,  which 
they  were  agreed  in  regarding  as  favorable  to  a 
dead  or  inoperative  kind  of  faith.''  At  this  time, 
as  I  said  a  moment  since,  Mr.  Fuller  assures  us  he 
had  read  none  of  Sandeman's  works.  Afterwards 
he  read  both  Sandeman  and  M'Lean,  and  says  ex- 
pressly that  he  was  in  ';  accord  with  them  in  con- 
sidering the  belief  of  the  gosjjel  as  saving  faith," 
but  that  he  and  they  attached  different  ideas  to 
"  believing."  Concerning  these  differences,  we 
shall  see  clearly  before  Ave  are  through  this  exami 
nation.  It  is  sufficient  here,  if  the  reader  notes 
distinctly,  that  as  regards  the  nature  of  faith,  Ful- 
ler says  plainly  that  he  was  in  accord  with  Sande- 
man and  M'Lean.  (See  preface  to  Fuller's  Gosj^el, 
passim,  and  also  appendix  to  sixth  American  edi- 
tion, Page  168,  where  he  says  in  so  many  words  : 
"I  have  the  pleasure  to  agree  with  Mr.  M'Lean  in 
considering  the  belief  of  the  gospel  as  saving  faith. 
Our  disagreement  on  this  subject  is  confined  to  the 
question,  What  the  belief  of  the  gospel  includes.'") 
It  is  clear  therefore,  that  Fuller,  Sandeman  and 
M'Lean,  were  in  entire  accord  on  the  nature  of 
faith,  and  we  may  proceed  at  once  to  other  items 
of  interest.  It  is  worth  while,  however,  to  note 
briefly,  in  passing,  the  steps  by  which  Mr.  Fuller 
seems  to  have  reached  his  conclusion,  ';  that  faith 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


43 


is  the  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what  God  hath 
said."  He  expressly  tells  us  he  had  "felt  himself 
encumbered  with  difficulties"  while  holding  an- 
other view.  This  statement  surely  ought  to  sur- 
prise no  one,  and  can  surprise  no  one  who  has 
thoughtfully  considered  what  it  involves.  It 
seems  to  lie  on  the  surface  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  repentance  and  faith  are  the  immediate  duty 
of  all  men  on  hearing  the  gospel.  But  the  duty  to 
believe  implies,  of  course,  a  divine  warrant,  and 
also  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  faith  to 
make  the  performance  of  the  duty  impossible.  A 
warrant  to  believe  means  the  universality  of  the 
atonement,  and  the  natural  ability  of  the  sinner  to 
accept  it.  Fuller  still  held  the  doctrine  of  the  sin- 
ner's moral  inability  to  re]3ent  and  believe,  but  his 
theological  scheme  took  slight  account  of  it.  The 
ground  of  such  inability  was  in  man's  sinful  nat- 
ure, in  the  obliquity  of  his  will,  and  the  aversion 
of  his  heart  to  God,  and  hence  his  unbelief  was 
his  own  fault.  If  there  is  natural  ability — that  is, 
if  there  are  the  natural  faculties  which  make  faith 
possible,  after  the  sinful  disposition  has  been  re- 
moved by  divine  grace — it  is  a  sufficient  basis  for 
the  obligation  to  believe.  It  does  not  matter  that 
this  sinful  disposition  comes  from  inherited  de- 
pravity, and  that  it  reaches  back  to  the  fall  of 
Adam,  for  though  the  sinner  may  have  lost  his 
ability  to  obey,  God  has  not  lost  his  right  to  com- 
mand.   But  Fuller  saw  clearly  enough,  that,  if 


44 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


faith  contains  in  its  own  essence  the  assurance  of 
a  personal  interest  in  Christ,  it  cannot  be  the  sin- 
ner's duty  to  believe,  until  the  knowledge  of  sal- 
vation has  been  bestowed.  So  he  rejected  the  doc- 
tine  of  Hervey  and  "  the  generality  of  Christians 
with  whom  lie  was  acquainted,"  and  accepted  the 
only  view  of  faith  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  con- 
sistent with  the  sinner's  obligation  to  believe.  In 
this  final  outcome  of  his  reasoning,  he  was  unques- 
tionably right,  however  cloudy  his  speculations  in 
regard  to  the  difference  between  natural  and  moral 
ability  may  seem  to  us,  in  the  clearer  light  of  our 
own  time. 

Fuller,  Sandeman  and  M'Lean,  were  also  in 
complete  accord  regarding  the  necessity  of  a 
s])ecial  divine  influence  in  order  to  enable  the  sin- 
ner to  believe.  The  differences  among  them  con- 
cerning "what  is  included  in  believing "  did  not 
affect  this  particular  at  all.  The  proof  here  is 
ample,  and,  I  presume,  will  not  be  denied.  I 
therefore  pass  on. 

The  differences  which  we  have  to  note  begin  at 
this  point.  Sandeman  and  M'Lean  held  that 
faith,  in  its  last  analysis,  is  the  mind's  acceptance 
of  "  God's  testimony  concerning  his  Son,"  and  that 
holiness  of  disposition  is  the  effect  of  faith.  Ful- 
ler, on  his  part,  unable  to  escape  entirely  from  the 
influence  of  his  earlier  view,  maintained,  that  the 
implantation  of  "  a  principle  of  holiness"  is  ante- 
cedent to  faith,  and  thus  included  in  it,  as  a  part 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


45 


of  its  essence.  Briefly,  the  difference  in  our  style 
of  speaking,  is  this :  According  to  Fuller,  change 
of  heart  takes  place  before  faith — is,  indeed,  the 
one  condition  without  which  faith  is  impossible 
— while  Sandeman  and  M'Lean  insisted  strenu- 
ously that  holiness  of  heart  is  secured  only 
through  faith.  In  other  words,  the  difference  is 
that  between  antecedent  and  consequent ;  between 
cause,  in  a  certain  sense,  and  effect.  It  is  not  to 
be  maintained  that  these  distinctions  amount  to 
nothing,  or  that  general  unanimity  has,  even  now, 
been  attained  in  regard  to  them.  It  may  be 
thought  that  they  are  of  little  practical  account, 
and  plain  Christians,  devoted  mainly  to  questions 
of  organization  and  work,  will  be  inclined,  no 
doubt,  to  pass  them  by  as  unimportant ;  but  as 
long  as  the  human  mind  insists  on  having  a 
rational  and  symmetrical  representation  of  the 
truth  it  holds,  all  the  more  thoughtful  disciples  of 
the  Lord  will  see  the  necessity  of  giving  to  such 
questions  due  importance  in  their  scheme  of  relig- 
ious thought. 

If  regeneration  be  the  same  thing  as  a  change  of 
heart  (which  has  been  generally  held  by  the  so- 
styled  Evangelical  denominations),  then  Fuller's 
theology  places  regeneration  before  faith ;  while, 
according  to  Sandeman  and  M'Lean,  regeneration 
is  'through  faith,  and  therefore,  after  it.  Baptists, 
to-day,  for  the  most  part,  stand  on  Fuller's  ground, 
but  the  Disciples,  without  exception  reject  it  as 


46 


0KIGIX  OF  THE 


anti-scriptural  and  irrational.    Of  this  there  is  no 
pretense  of  denial,  whatever  inferences  men  like 
Mr.  Whitsitt  may  see  lit  to  draw  from  it.  But 
while  the  "generality"  of  Baptists  adopt  Fuller's 
doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  "  a  holy  principle  in 
order  to  believing,"  few  of  them,  I  am  persuaded, 
will  accept,  without  great  qualification,  his  defini- 
tion of  saving  faith.    The  fact  is,  our  modern  Bap- 
tists are  still  with  Hervey  and  the  Methodists  in 
their  view  of  that  question.    The  logically  impos- 
sible theory  which  Fuller  gave  up  for  what  Dr. 
Clifford  has  recently  styled  a  better  "  working  the- 
ology," is  still  maintained  among  them  with  essen- 
tial   unanimity.    What  Baptist    preacher  now 
speaks  of  faith  as  "  the  persuasion  of  the  truth  of 
what  God  has  revealed?"    Or  who  among  them 
has  been  known  to  define  it  as  "  the  belief  of  the 
gospel  ?  "    And  yet  among  the  English  Baptists  of 
the  latter  half  of  the  last  century,  this  was  Fuller's 
most  characteristic  contention.    He  boldly  took 
this  ground  when  "  the  generality  of  Christians 
with  whom  he  was  acquainted"  rejected  it  as  the 
doctrine  of  Robert  Sandeman.    On  this  question 
our  modern  Baptists  are  not  Fullerites.    The  fact 
is,  they  hold  with  remarkable  unanimity  that  "  the 
sense  of  adoption,"  save  in  very  rare  cases,  is  the 
real  test  of  saving  faith.    It  is  to  this  test  that  the 
applicant  for  church  membership  is,  in  the  first 
place,  invariably  subjected.    Failing  here,  he  may 
not  be  positively  rejected,  but  his  "  experience  "  is 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


47 


certain  to  be  regarded  as  defective  at  the  most 
vital  point.  Oh  !  for  another  Fuller  to  lead  them 
quite  out  of  the  wilderness  in  whose  depths  they 
are  still  wandering! 

But  besides  the  matter  here  considered,  there 
were  certain  differences  concerning  the  ground 
upon  which  faith  justifies,  which  seem  to  demand 
some  notice  in  our  present  survey.  In  any  possi- 
ble view  of  the  matter,  faith  is,  so  to  say,  the  act 
— if  one  may  call  it  an  act — of  the  creature.  It  is 
the  sinner  that  believes,  not  God.  And  no  view  of 
enabling  grace  that  one  may  hold  in  the  least 
affects  this  conclusion.  Say,  if  the  reader  chooses, 
that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God — a  position  which  was 
not  in  debate  among  the  men  whose  views  we  are 
looking  into — and  it  still  remains  true,  that  the 
sinner,  being  divinely  enabled,  "believes  the  gos- 
pel," or  "accepts  the  testimony  of  God  concerning 
Christ."  Now  this  faith,  which  is  undeniably  the 
sinner's  own  act,  either  has  in  it,  or  has  not,  the 
element  of  holiness;  it  contains,  or  does  not  con- 
tain, in  itself,  intrinsic  moral  or  spiritual  value. 
But  if  faith  contain  in  itself  holiness,  how  is  justi- 
fication by  faith  a  gracious  justification?  For  in 
such  case,  a  holy  princijjle  in  the  sinner  is  made 
the  basis  of  his  justification.  So  reasoned 
M'Lean,  and  Fuller  replied  as  best  he  could. 
M'Lean  pressed  the  difficulty  upon  him  with  great 
vigor  and  effect.  I  take  no  side  in  their  contro- 
versy.   They  were  able  men.  but  they  were  both 


48 


ORIGIN  ()F  THE 


in  the  fog.  That  my  readers  may  have  a  clear 
view  of  this  old-time  discussion,  I  beg  leave  to 
offer  a  few  extracts  for  their  consideration.  As  a 
specimen  of  theological  dialectics,  a  hundred  years 
ago,  it  cannot  fail  to  interest  them. 

"This  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Jesus,  although  a  duty  incumbent  on  all  who 
hear  the  gos]3el,  is  nevertheless  the  special  gift  of 
God,  being  the  effect  of  divine  teaching  by  means 
of  the  Word,  and  peculiar  to  the  elect  ;  so  that 
whatever  appearances  there  may  be  of  it  in  false 
professors,  they  have  not  at  bottom  the  same  per- 
ception of  truth,  nor  that  persuasion  of  it  upon  its 
proper  evidence  which  real  believers  have.  But 
as  we  can  not  discern  the  difference  by  the  confes- 
sion of  the  mouth,  when  that  confession  accords 
with  the  form  of  sound  words,  it  is  therefore  neces- 
sary that  true  faith  should  be  distinguished  by  its 
general  effects  upon  the  heart  and  life. 

"  As  to  its  effects  upon  the  heart,  such  is  the  im- 
portant, interesting  and  salutary  nature  of  the 
truth  testified  in  the  gospel,  with  its  suitableness 
and  freeness  for  the  chief  of  sinners,  that  it  is  no 
sooner  perceived  and  believed,  than  it  takes  pos 
session  of  the  will  and  affections,  and  becomes  in 
the  soul  the  ground  of  its  hope,  trust  and  reliance ; 
the  object  of  its  desire,  acceptance,  esteem  and 
joy;  and  the  principle  of  every  holy,  active  and 
gracious  disposition  of  the  heart. 

uBut  these  effects  of  faith,  or  which  is  the  same, 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


49 


of  the  truth  believed,  ought  not  to  be  confounded 
with  faith  itself,  as  is  commonly  done.  Though 
faith  is  the  confidence  of  things  hoped  for,  and 
also  worketh  by  love ;  yet  it  is  neither  hope  nor 
love,  for  the  apostle  distinguisheth  it  from  both. 
And  now  abideth  faith,  hope  and  love — these 
three.  The  same  may  be  said  of  its  other  effects 
upon  the  heart,  for  whatever  is  more  than  belief  is 
more  than  faith,  and  ought  to  go  by  another 
name. 

"It  will,  perhaps  be  asked,  why  so  nice  in  dis- 
tinguishing here  \  What  harm  can  arise  from  in- 
cluding in  the  nature  of  faith  such  holy  disposi- 
tions, affections  and  exercises  of  heart,  as  are  con- 
fessedly inseparable  from  it  \  In  answer  to  this, 
let  it  be  considered. 

1.  That  unless  we  carefully  distinguish  faith 
from  its  effects,  particularly  on  the  point  of  a  sin- 
ner's acceptance  with  God,  the  important  doctrine 
of  free  justification  by  faith  alone,  will  be 
materially  affected.  The  Scriptures  pointedly  de- 
clare that  God  'justifies  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,' 
and  that  this  justification  is  '  received  through 
faith  in  Christ's  blood.'  Faith  in  this  case  is 
always  distinguished  from,  and  opposed  to,  the 
works  of  the  law ;  not  merely  of  the  ceremonial 
law  which  was  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  but  of  that 
law  by  which  is  the  knowledge  of  sin,  which  says- 
'Thou  shalt  not  covet,'  and  which  requires  not 

4 


50 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


only  outward  good  actions,  but  love,  and  every 
good  disposition  of  heart,  both  towards  God  and 
our  neighbor;  so  that  the  works  of  the  law  respect 
the  heart  as  well  as  life.  The  distinction,  there- 
fore, between  faith  and  works,  on  this  subject,  is 
not  that  which  is  between  inward  and  outward 
conformity  to  the  law ;  for  if  faith  is  not  in  this 
case,  distinguished  from  and  opposed  to  our  con- 
formity to  the  law,  both  outwardly  and  inwardly, 
it  can  not  be  said  that  we  are  'justified  by  faith 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law,'  or  that  God  '  justi- 
fieth  the  ungodly.'  Faith  indeed,  as  a  principle 
of  action,  '  worketh  by  love  ; '  but  it  is  not  as  thus 
working  that  it  is  "  imputed  for  righteousness  ;  " 
for  it  is  expressly  declared  that  'righteousness  is 
imputed  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on 
him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly. '  'It  is  of  faith' 
that  it  might  be  by  grace ;  and  grace  and  works 
are  represented  as  being  imcompatible  with  each 
other ;  for  to  him  that  worketh  the  reward  is  not 
reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt.' 

Now  when  men  include  in  the  very  nature  of 
justifying  faith,  such  good  dispositions,  holy  affec- 
tions, and  pious  exercises  of  heart  as  the  moral 
law  requires,  and  so  make  them  necessary  (no 
matter  under  what  consideration)  to  a  sinner's  ac- 
ceptance with  God,  it  perverts  the  gospel  doctrine 
on  this  important  subject,  and  makes  justification 
to  be  at  least,  as  it  were,  by  the  works  of  the  law." 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


51 


— M'Lean  on  The  Commission.  Cincinnati,  1S71, 
Pages  72,  74. 

The  reader  will  easily  note  the  points'  here . 
made,  (a)  Faith  is  the  special  gift  of  God.  (b) 
It  is  peculiar  to  the  elect,  (c)  It  is  distinguished 
by  its  genuine  effects  upon  the  heart  and  life,  (d) 
But  these  effects  are,  in  point  of  fact,  inseparable 
from  it — i.e..  they  always  follow  it  immediately, 
(e)  They  must  not,  however,  be  confounded  with 
it,  as  is  commonly  done.  "  Whatever  is  more  than 
belief,  is  more  than  faith,  and  ought  to  go  by  an- 
other name/'  (f)  Especially  is  faith  to  be  distin- 
guished from  its  effects  in  the  matter  of  justifica- 
tion, for  if  faith  is  held  to  include  in  its  nature, 
holiness  of  disposition,  the  sinner  is  accepted  on 
the  ground  of  such  holiness,  and  justification  by 
faith  is  no  longer  justification  by  grace,  but  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  justification  by  law,  or  by 
works,  (g)  Further,  it  could  not  be  said  in  that 
case  that  ,k  He  justifieth  the  ungodly,"  for  faith  is 
supposed  to  include  a  godly  state  of  the  heart. 
These  points  are,  of  course,  keenly  made,  but  it  is 
easy  to  see  how  much,  and  how  little,  such  specu- 
lations had  to  do  with  the  "  origin  of  the  Disciples 
of  Christ." 

Andrew  Fuller,  as  has  been  said,  took  a  very 
different  ground.  We  must  also  allow  him  to 
speak  for  himself. 

"  I  have  the  pleasure.''  says  Fuller,  "  to  agree 
with  Mr.  M'Lean  in  considering  the  belief  of  the 


52 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


gospel  as  saving  faith.  Our  disagreement  on  this 
subject,  is  confined  to  the  question:  "  What  the 
belief  of  the  gospel  includes."  Mr.  M.  so  ex- 
plains it.  as  to  carefully  exclude  every  exercise  of 
the  heart  or  will,  as  either  included  in  it,  or  hav- 
ing any  influence  upon  it.  Whatever  of  this  exists 
in  a  believer,  he  considers  as  belonging  to  the 
effects  of  faith,  rather  than  to  faith  itself.  If  I 
understand  him,  he  pleads  for  such  a  belief  of  the 
gospel,  as  has  nothing  in  it  of  a  holy  nature,  noth- 
ing of  conformity  to  the  moral  law  '  in  heart  or 
life;''  a  passive  reception  of  truth,  in  which  the 
will  has  no  concern ;  and  this,  because  it  is  op- 
posed to  the  works  of  the  law  in  the  article  of  jus- 
tification. On  this  ground,  he  accounts  for  the 
apostle's  language  in  Rom.  4:5:  'To  him  that 
worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  Him  that  justifieth 
the  ungodly;'  understanding  by  the  terms,  '  he 
that  worketh  not,'  one  who  has  done  nothing  yet 
which  is  pleasing  to  God ;  and  by  the  term  1  un- 
godly,' 'one  that  is  actually  an  enemy  to  God.' 
(It  must  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Fuller  is  here 
saying  how  he  understands  M'Lean.  Whether 
he  understood  him  correctly,  or  not,  the  reader 
will  judge  from  the  words  of  M.,  himself,  as  quoted 
above.)  *  *  *         *  * 

"If  Mr.  M.  had  only  affirmed  that  faith  is  op- 
posed to  works,  even  to  every  good  disposition  of 
the  heart,  as  the  ground  of  acceptance  with  God; 
that  we  are  not  justified  by  it  as  a  work  ;  or  that 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


53 


whatever  moral  goodness  it  may  possess,  it  is  not 
as  sucli  that  it  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness, 
there  had  been  no  dispute  between  us.  But  this 
distinction  he  rejects."  "  He  is  not  contented  with 
faith  being  opposed  to  works  in  point  of  justifica- 
tion ;  it  must  also  be  opposed  to  them  in  its  own 
nature.  In  short,  if  there  be  any  possibility  of 
drawing  a  certain  conclusion  from  what  a  writer, 
in  almost  every  form  of  speech,  has  advanced,  it 
must  be  concluded  that  he  means  to  deny  that 
there  is  anything  holy  in  the  nature  of  faith ;  and 
that  could  it  be  separated  from  its  effects,  as  he 
supposes  it  is  in  justification,  it  would  leave  the 
person  who  possessed  it,  among  the  enemies  of 
God."  "  Mr.  M.  allows  faith  to  be  a  duty — it  is 
'  the  command  of  God,'  and  a  '  part  of  obedience 
to  God,' — that  to  believe  what  God  says  is  right, 
and  that  unbelief,  which  is  its  opposite,  is  a  great 
and  heinous  sin.'  But  how  can  these  things 
agree  ?  If  there  be  nothing  of  the  exercise  of  a 
holy  disposition  in  what  is  commanded  of  God,  in 
what  is  right,  and  in  what  is  an  exercise  of  obe- 
dience; by  what  rule  are  we  to  judge  of  what  is 
holy  and  what  is  not  ?  I  can  scarcely  conceive  of 
a  truth  more  self-evident  than  this,  '  That  God's 
commands  extend  only  to  that  which  comes  under 
the  influence  of  the  will.'  Knowledge  can  be  no 
further  a  duty,  nor  ignorance  a  sin,  than  each  is 
influenced  by  the  moral  state  of  the  heart ;  and 
the  same  is  true  of  faith  and  unbelief.    To  receive 


54 


ORIGIxY  OF  THE 


truth  into  the  heart,  indeed,  is  duty ;  for  this  is 
voluntary  acquiescence  in  it;  but  that  in  which 
the  will  lias  no  concern,  can  not  possibly  be  so." 
Fuller's  Gospel,  Sixth  American  edition,  Cin., 
1832.    Appendix.    Pages  168-170. 

I  can  not  afford  space  for  further  extracts ;  nor 
is  it  necessary.  The  gist  of  the  debate,  and  the 
main  positions  of  the  disputants,  are  apparent 
enough  from  what  I  have  given.  I  hope  no  reader 
has  felt  a  weariness  stealing  over  him,  as  he  has 
sought  to  follow  these  champions  in  their  conflict 
over  issues,  which,  in  their  18th  century  form,  are 
not  now  heard  of  at  all.  They  are  not  without  in- 
terest, however,  as  showing  important  points  of 
connection  in  the  continuous  development  of  relig- 
ious thought. 

It  is  important  to  our  inquiry  that  the  precise 
position  of  the  parties  to  these  old  issues  shall  be 
distinctly  understood.  How  far  Fuller  and 
M'Lean  agreed,  and  precisely  wherein  they  dif- 
fered, may  not  be  entitled  to  the  least  weight  in 
determining  what  is  true  or  false,  in  our  discussion 
of  doctrines  at  the  present  time,  but,  if  the  ques- 
tion relate  to  an  influence  exerted,  or  said  to  have 
been  exerted,  upon  the  mind  of  Mr.  Campbell,  and 
through  him  upon  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  by  these 
half-forgotten  conflicts,  they  straightway  become 
interesting  to  us.  It  is  on  this  account,  solely, 
that  I  have  asked  the  attention  of  my  readers  to 
the  details  which  have  been  thus  far  presented; 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


55 


and  for  the  same  reason  I  must  solicit  their  indul- 
gence while  I  seek  to  throw  still  more  light  upon 
the  subject.  I  prefer  to  risk  the  charge  of  tedious - 
ness,  rather  than  that  of  obscurity,  on  any  vital 
point. 

It  can  not  be  without  interest  to  us  to  note  the 
fact  that  when  Fuller  speaks  of  repentance  and 
faith,  he  uniformly  places  the  words  in  this  order, 
while  M'Clean  adopts  the  contrary  order  of  faith 
and  repentance.  It  would  doubtless  be  a  great 
mistake  to  suppose  that  the  naked  question  of  the 
order  in  which  faith  and  repentance  take  place  in 
the  sinner's  return  to  God  was  regarded  by  either 
of  these  distinguished  men  as  a  matter  of  special 
importance.  There  is  no  reason  why  it  should 
have  been  so  considered.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
way  of  speaking  which  we  here  observe  has  a 
much  deeper  significance.  It  goes,  indeed,  to  the 
very  roots  of  rival  theologies.  With  Fuller,  as  we 
have  seen,  faith  was  always  the  act  of  a  regenerate 
soul.  For  while  he  insisted  that  it  was  the  sin- 
ner's immediate  duty  to  believe,  he,  at  the  same 
time,  firmly  maintained  that  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  do  so,  until  the  obstructing  hindrance  of 
native  depravity  had  been  removed.  This  is  the 
sole  meaning  of  his  contention  for  the  necessity  of 
a  principle  of  holiness  in  order  to  believing. 
Faith  is  only  possible  to  a  renewed  heart.  The 
implantation  of  a  holy  disposition  precedes  it  in 
every  case.    Naturally,  he  thought  repentance 


56 


ORIGIN"  OF  THE 


would  be  the  first  expression  of  this  new  principle 
of  holiness,  even  though  the  subject  might;  not 
himself  be  conscious  of  its  priority.  In  "  The 
G-ospel  Worthy  of  all  Acceptation  " — Sixth  Amer- 
ican edition,  Cincinnati,  1832 — we  have  the  follow- 
ing statement  and  illustration  :  "  That  the  bias  of 
the  heart  requires  to  be  turned  to  God,  antecedent 
to  believing,  has  been  admitted,  because  the  nat- 
ure of  believing  is  such  that  it  can  not  be  exer- 
cised while  the  soul  is  under  the  dominion  of  wil- 
ful blindness,  hardness  and  aversion.  These  dis- 
positions are  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  a 
bar  in  the  way  of  faith,  as  being  inconsistent  with 
it;  and  which,  consequently,  require  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  way.  But  whatever  necessity  there 
may  be  for  a  change  of  heart  in  order  to  believing, 
it  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible  that  the  party 
should  be  conscious  of  it  till  he  has  believed.  It 
is  necessary  that  the  eyes  of  a  blind  man  should 
be  opened  before  he  can  see,  but  it  is  neither 
necessary  nor  possible  for  him  to  know  that  his 
eyes  are  open  till  he  doth  see.  It  is  only  by  sur- 
rounding objects  appearing  to  his  view,  that  he 
knows  the  obstructing  film  to  be  removed.''  This 
is  in  reply  to  a  Mr.  Brine,  who,  while  agreeing 
with  Fuller,  that  regeneration  or  change  of  heart 
precedes  faith,  argues  therefrom  that  only  the  re- 
generate have  a  warrant  to  believe.  To  set  this 
aside,  Fuller  says  in  effect,  that  though  it  be  in- 
deed true  that  regeneration  precedes  faith,  it  is  no 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


57 


more  possible  for  the  party  to  be  conscious  of  his 
regeneration  till  he  believes,  than  for  a  blind  man 
to  know  that  his  eyes  have  been  opened  before  he 
is  conscious  of  seeing.  Faith  is  the  soul's  seeing, 
and  regeneration  is  the  removal  of  the  film  from 
the  souTs  eyes. 

Again:  (Appendix  pp.  214,215)  "All  I  contend 
for  is,  '  that  it  is  not  by  means  of  a  spiritual  per- 
ception, or  belief  of  the  gospel,  that  the  heart  is, 
for  the  first  time,  effectually  influenced  towards 
God :  for  spiritual  perception  and  belief  are  repre- 
sented as  the  effects,  and  not  as  the  causes  of  such 
influence." 

"  A  spiritual  perception  of  the  glory  of  divine 
things  appears  to  be  the  first  sensation  of  which 
the  mind  is  conscious;  but  it  is  not  the  first  oper- 
ation of  God  upon  it" 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  in  the  strict  theologi- 
cal sense,  Fuller  placed  regeneration  before  faith  ; 
as  the  removal  of  the  film  from  a  blind  man's  eyes 
necessarily  precedes  the  act  of  seeing.  But  as 
regards  repentance  and  faith,  he  says  expressly, 
that  "  saving  faith  implies  repentance  ;  "  i.  e.,  re- 
pentance, in  the  order  of  Christian  experience, 
comes  before  faith.    Appendix,  p.  179. 

So  his  theology  stood  thus:  (1)  Regeneration; 
(2)  Repentance ;  (3)  Faith.  This  may  seem 
strange  when  we  remember  that  he  defined  faith 
as  "  the  belief  of  the  gospel ;  "  or  as  "the  persua- 
sion of  the  truth  of  what  God  hath  said."  But 


58 


OKIGIN  OF  THE 


there  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  was  his  view, 
though  we  may  totally  fail  to  see  how  he  could 
obviate,  in  his  own  mind,  the  difficulties  which  it 
involves.  Great  men  are  not  always  consistent, 
with  themselves,  to  say  nothing  of  their  want  of 
consistency  with  truth  seen  clearly  by  other  peo- 
ple. 

While,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  debate  as  to 
the  view  maintained  by  Fuller,  it  is  quite  as  cer- 
tain that  M '  Lean  held  the  directly  opposite  posi- 
tion. With  the  former,  a  change  of  heart  was 
thought  to  precede  any  real  "  belief  of  the  gospel;" 
while  the  latter  strenuously  insisted,  that  repent- 
ance, and  all  Italy  dispositions,  were  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  effects  of  such  belief.  It  is  this  sin- 
gle feature  of  their  protracted  debates,  which  has 
descended,  as  a  living  issue,  to  the  Christian 
thinkers  of  to-day.  The  sharp  controversy  be- 
tween these  men,  and  the  schools  to  which  they 
belonged,  concerning  the  ground  on  which  faith  is 
acounted  for  righteouness,  whether  holy  disposi- 
tions were  to  be  excluded  from  the  nature  of  faith 
in  order  that  justification  might  be  an  act  of  sov- 
ereign grace,  and  all  kindred  contentions,  are  no 
longer  in  debate  anywhere.  To  all  well  informed 
people,  this  goes  with  the  saying.  Argument  is 
unnecessary.  But  Fuller's  opponents  met  him 
with  the  objection  that  regeneration  before  faith, 
implies  the  contradiction  of  a  godly  unbeliever. 
"A  spiritual  perception  of  the  glory  of  divine 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


59 


things,''  says  Fuller,  "  is  the  first  sensation  of 
which  the  mind  is  conscious,  but  it  is  not  the  first 
operation  of  God  upon  it."  Of  this  first  operation, 
regeneration  is  the  immediate  effect,  and  faith  is 
the  effect  of  regeneration.  The  consciousness  of 
faith,  so  to  say,  reveals  the  fact  of  regeneration, 
as  a  prior  work  of  the  Spirit.  But,  if  this  be  the 
order  of  experience,  it  is  impossible  to  say  cer- 
tainly that  regeneration  may  not  be  separated 
from  faith  by  an  interval  of  time.  In  any  event, 
if  a  holy  disposition  precedes  faith,  godliness 
comes  first,  and  faith  afterwards.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  retort  was  ready,  that,  if  all  holy  dispo- 
sitions must  be  excluded  from  faith,  as  not  of  its 
essence,  and,  in  point  of  fact,  not  co-existent  with 
it,  at  the  moment  of  justification,  then,  this  theory 
gives  the  equal  absurdity  of  an  ungodly  believer. 
M'Lean  insisted  most  strenuouly  that  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  ungodly  (which  Paul  expressly 
teaches,)  implies  that  the  act  of  justification  at- 
taches to  faith  in  advance  of  the  holy  dispositions 
which  follow  it.  In  this  case,  who  can  say  that 
the  theory  is  not  open  to  the  charge  brought 
against  it  \  Does  it  not  involve  the  contradiction, 
momentarily,  at  least,  of  an  ungodly  believer f 
Looking  back  at  this  discussion,  from  our  present 
point  of  view,  it  seems  safe  to  say  that  each  of 
these  theologians  succeeded  in  overturning,  in 
part,  his  opponent's  theory.  Both  were  right,  and 
both  were  wrung ;  but  in  a  different  way.  Fuller 


60 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


was  wrong  in  maintaining  the  priority  of  regen- 
eration to  faith,  and  M'Lean  was  equally  wrong 
in  arguing  that  a  gracious  justification  excludes 
all  holy  dispositions  from  the  soul,  at  the  moment 
when  God  justifies.  It  is  strange  that  so  acute  a 
thinker  should  have  been  bewildered  by  the  mere 
logic  of  the  letter,  in  a  matter  which  now  seems  so 
clear.  To  do  equal  justice,  it  must  be  said  that 
Fuller  did  not  admit  that,  in  ordinary  cases,  faith 
is  separated  from  regeneration  in  time,  nor  did 
M'Lean  teach,  that  the  holy  dispositions  which 
proceed  from  faith,  are  separated  from  it  in  con- 
sciousness. "  The  priority  contended  for,"  says 
Fuller,  "is  rather  in  the  order  of  nature  than  of 
time."  "  And  if  there  be  a  priority  in  the  order  of 
time,  owing  to  the  want  of  opportunity  of  know- 
ing the  truth,  yet  when  a  person  embraces  Christ 
so  far  as  he  has  the  means  of  knowing  him,  he  is 
in  effect  a  believer."  On  the  other  hand  M  '  Lean 
says  expressly,  that  "  the  saving  truth  testified  in 
the  gospel,  is  no  sooner  perceived  and  believed 
than  it  takes  possession  of  the  will  and  affections, 
and  becomes  in  the  soul  the  ground  of  its  hope 
ami  reliance,  and  the  principle  of  every  holy,  ac- 
tive and  gracious  disposition  of  the  hearty 

It  must  be  admitted,  I  think,  that  Fuller's  doc- 
trine of  regeneration  before  faith  is  inconsistent 
with  his  definition  of  faith.  For  if  faith  be  "the 
persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what  God  hath  said," 
it  is  the  necessary  condition  of  all  saving  influ- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


61 


ences  exerted  by  means  of  the  gospel.  Whatever 
precedes  the  "belief  of  the  gospel,"  is  accom- 
plished without  the  gospel.  If  regeneration  pre- 
cedes "the  belief  of  the  gospel,"  then  the  gospel 
is  not  the  means  of  regeneration,  and  all  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  teach  the  instrumen- 
tality of  God's  word  in  regeneration,  are  rendered 
void  and  unmeaning.  It  seems  clear  that  most 
Baptists  now  perceive  Fuller's  inconsistency  at 
this  point,  for  they  have  given  up  his  view  of  the 
nature  of  faith.  They  do  not  teach  that  faith  is 
"  the  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what  God  hath 
said ;  "  nor  do  they  define  faith  as  "  the  belief  of 
the  gospel."  They  are  not  satisfied  to  regard 
faith  as  the  root  of  good  dispositions,  and  the 
mainspring  of  all  holy  and  gracious  activities,  nor 
do  they  recognize  the  dominant  element  of  intel- 
lectual conviction,  which  the  Scriptures  everywhere 
give  to  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  resolve  it,  in  effect, 
into  a  mere  emotional  experience,  from  which,  the 
scriptural  idea  of  belief  has  been  well  nigh  elimi- 
nated. Besides  this,  as  I  intimated  above,  they 
have  practically  gone  back  to  the  doctrine  of  faith 
against  which  all  Fuller's  writings  were  an  earnest 
and  vehement  protest.  Like  Wesley,  they  regard 
an  emotional  consciousness  of  pardon  as  the  very 
essence  of  true  faith.  The  point  evermore  insisted 
upon,  in  judging  of  conversion,  is  the  feeling  testi- 
mony of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  "Do  you,  my 
brother  or  sister,  feel  that  God,  for  Christ's  sake, 


&2 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


has  pardoned  you  I "  is  a  question  never  omitted. 
It  is  not  the  consciousness  of  faith  so  much  as  the 
mystic  sense  of  salvation,  which  is  the  uniform 
criterion  of  judgment,  when  the  church  with  open 
doors  sits  for  reception  of  converts  into  its  pale. 
This  is  consistent  with  Wesleyanism,  and  Morav- 
ianism,  or  even  with  the  Antinomianism  from 
which  Fuller  vainly  sought  to  deliver  them,  but  it 
is  inconsistent  with  Fuller's  most  characteristic 
contention,  and  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  plain- 
est teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  may  be  well,  in  this  connection,  to  note 
another  feature  of  Fuller's  teaching,  which  our 
American  Baptists  have  quite  lost  sight  of.  Fi>ller 
insisted  with  all  the  might  he  possessed,  that  faith 
is  the  sinner's  immediate  duty;  that  there  was  no 
duty  before  "  repentance  and  faith/'  not  even 
prayer.  Nothing  is  enjoined  irpon  a  sinner  that 
does  not  imply  repentance  and  faith.  "It  is  the 
duty  of  ministers  not  only  to  exhort  their  carnal 
auditors  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  for  the  salva- 
tion of  their  souls,  but  it  is  at  our  peril  to  exltort 
them  to  anything  short  of  it,  or  wliieli  does  not 
involve,  or  imply  it."  The  italics  here  are  Mr. 
Fuller's  own,  and  show  the  importance  he  attached 
to  what  he  was  saying.  But  to  shut  out  all  mis- 
take, listen  to  the  following,  leveled  at  some  of  the 
preaching  of  his  time :  "  Repentance  towards  God, 
and  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  al- 
lowed to  be  duties;  but  nut  immediate  duties. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


63 


The  sinner  is  considered  as  unable  to  comply  with 
them,  and,  therefore,  they  are  not  urged  upon  him; 
but  instead  of  them  he  is  directed  to  pray  for  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  enable  him  to  repent  and  believe, 
and  this  it  seems  he  can  do  notwithstanding  the 
aversion  of  his  heart  to  everything  of  the  kind. 
But  if  any  man  be  required  to  pray  for  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  must  be  either  sincerely,  and  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  or  insincerely,  and  in  some  other  way. 
The  latter  I  suppose  will  be  allowed  to  be  an 
abomination  in  the  sight  of  God ;  he  can  not  there- 
fore be  required  to  do  this  ;  and  as  to  the  former, 
it  is  just  as  difficult,  and  as  opposite  to  the  carnal 
heart  as  repentance  and  faith  themselves.  Indeed, 
it  amounts  to  the  same  thing ;  for  a  sincere  desire 
after  a  spiritual  blessing,  presented  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  is  no  other  than  the  "prayer  of  faith." 
If  I  knew  how  to  emphasize  these  words,  so  that 
all  Baptists  in  this  land  would  be  constrained  to 
take  note  of  them,  and  prayerfully  study  them,  I 
would  gladly  do  it.  There  is  just  one  emphatic 
point  to  be  made  ;  namely,  there  is  no  duty  en- 
joined in  the  gospel,  which  does  not  imply  faith 
and  repentance  in  order  to  its  acceptable  perform- 
ance. It  may  be  doubted  if  Fuller  himself  saw 
the  far-reaching  significance  of  his  own  words,  but 
he  did  see  the  simple  fact  which  he  states  so 
clearly,  otherwise,  he  could  never  have  put  it  into 
phraseology  so  terse,  and  so  unmistakable  as  re- 
gards, at  least,  its  primary  meaning.    I  cordially 


64 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


commend  to  all  Baptists  this  significant  deliver- 
ance of  their  great  leader.  And  if  they  shall  see, 
in  the  light  of  it,  the  necessity  of  changing  some- 
what their  teaching,  and  reconstructing  thoroughly 
some  of  their  practices,  I  shall  be  fully  repaid  for 
my  labor  of  love  in  calling  their  attention  to  it. 

Meantime,  I  need  only  say  now,  that  Fuller  and 
M'Lean  both  blundered  as  to  "what  is  included  in 
believing."  Fuller  was  mistaken  as  to  its  includ- 
ing regeneration,  or  change  of  heart,  as  a  prior 
condition,  and  M'Lean,  as  to  the  necessity  of  ex- 
cluding from  its  essence  the  change  of  heart,  which 
he  admitted  to  be  its  immediate  effect.  Faith,  as 
the  ground  of  justification,  is  a  comprehensive 
conception.  In  the  last  analysis,  it  is  indeed  the 
mind's  conviction  "  of  the  truth  of  what  God  hath 
said;"  the  "belief  of  the  gospel;"  but  not  that 
to  the  exclusion  of  any  of  its  divine  effects  in  the 
soul  or  in  the  life.  On  the  contrary,  as  the  prin- 
ciple of  justification,  it  is  taken  as  inclusive  of  all 
these  effects,  and  never,  for  a  moment,  thought  of 
in  the  divine  mind,  as  apart  from  them.  It  is  in- 
deed faith  which  is  accounted  for  righteousness, 
and  not  hope,  or  love,  or  any  other  effect  of  faith, 
but  it  is  because  it  is  viewed  as  the  root,  and 
ground  of  all  these  things,  and  because  they  are 
comprehended  in  it,  as  an  effect  is  always  in- 
cluded in  its  cause,  that  God  accepts  it  for  "right- 
eousness," (which,  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  not,)  and 
so  justifies  the  obedient  believer  "freely  by  his 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST.  65 

grace."    If  a  man  does  not  see  these  things  clearly 
in  the  dry  light  of  to-day,  it  is  surely  his  own 
fault. 
5 


66 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  SIMPLE  FACTS  OF  THE  CASE. 

We  are  now  ready  to  estimate  the  influence  of 
these  various  parties  upon  the  mind  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, and  to  decide  how  far  the  representations  of 
Mr.  Whitsitt  are  entitled  to  the  credence  of  candid 
men.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Campbell  read  Hervey, 
Wesley,  and  Fuller  and  Gale,  Sandeman,  M'Lean, 
and  the  Haldanes,  and  that  he  was  quite  familiar 
with  the  positions  of  all  these  gentlemen,  and 
their  arguments  in  support  of  them.  That  their 
discussions  had  no  influence  on  the  formation  of 
his  views,  it  would  be  foolish  to  assert.  But,  that 
he  followed  no  one-sided  representation  is  certain, 
for  he  carefully  read  and  weighed  the  arguments 
of  all.  If  his  own  statements  are  entitled  to  the 
least  credit,  he  was,  more  than  anything  else,  a 
devoted  student  of  the  New  Testament,  and  was 
accustomed  to  bring  all  theories  and  suggestions 
of  theories  to  the  touch-stone  of  revelation,  before 
receiving  or  rejecting  them.  If  he  was  indebted  to 
any  one,  to  Sandeman  or  M'Lean,  to  Wesley  or 
Fuller,  for  views  that  he  finally  held,  it  was  in 
precisely  the  same  way  thot  every  independent 
and  conscientious  investigator  is  indebted  to  some 
one  else,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  truth  which  he  knows.    This  is 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


67 


as  certain  as  anything  human  can  be.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  only  fair  to  say  that,  in  certain  of 
their  features,  Mr.  Campbell's  views  were  kindred 
to  those  of  M '  Lean  and  the  Haldanes,  rather  than 
to  those  of  Fuller  and  the  school  of  which  he  was 
practically  the  founder.  Regarding  the  nature  of 
faith,  as  then  debated,  he  agreed  with  Sandeman, 
M '  Lean  and  Fuller,  as  they,  confessedly,  agreed 
with  each  other.  Concerning  the  priority  of  re- 
generation or  faith,  he  was  with  M '  Lean  and  the 
Scotch  Baptists,  and  opposed  to  Fuller  and  his 
followers,  whether  in  England  or  America.  He 
never  sympathized  with  the  view  that  justification 
by  faith  implies  the  exclusion  of  all  the  holy  dis- 
positions which  follow  faith,  and  the  imputation 
of  "  the  bare  belief  of  the  bare  truth"  for  right- 
eousness. On  this  point  he  was  distinctly  anti- 
Sandemanian.  His  view  of  the  design  of  baptism 
was  the  product  of  honest  and  patient  study  of  the 
New  Testament.  He  borrowed  it  from  no  one,  nor 
is  it  identical  with  that  held  by  any  party  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  their  immediate  suc- 
cessors. It  is  no  more  the  baptismal  regeneration 
of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  or  of  Catholics 
and  Anglicans,  than  it  is  the  notion  of  a  mere  out- 
ward sign  or  symbol  of  an  inward  grace,  now  held 
by  Baptists,  and,  for  the  most  part,  Pedo-baptists, 
alike.  It  is  not  baptismal  regeneration  as  it  has 
been  held,  at  any  time,  by  any  party.  Much  less 
is  it  the  view  which  represents  baptism  as  a  mere 


68 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


symbolical  representation  of  that  with  which  the 
Xew  Testament  has  connected  it  conditionally. 
To  say  that  he  borrowed  it  from  M '  Lean,  whose 
theory  required  the  imputation  of  faith  for  right- 
eousness, not  only  before  obedience  to  any  ordi- 
nance, but  even  antecedent  to  that  holiness  of 
heart  which  he  robustly  held  to  be  an  immediate 
effect  of  faith,  is  to  talk  at  random,  or  to  be  inca- 
pable of  making  the  simplest  distinctions  of  doc- 
trine known  to  theology.  In  maintaining  the 
necessity  of  a  plurality  of  elders,  or  bishops,  in 
each  local  church,  as  well  as  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  on  every  Lord's  day,  Mr.  Campbell 
agreed  substantially  with  the  Sandemanians  and 
Scotch  Baptists,  because  he  found  them  in  line 
with  the  precedents  of  the  New  Testament.  Their 
observance  of  foot-washing  and  love-feasts,  as  or- 
dinances, he  rejected,  as  being  destitute  of  apos- 
tolic or  inspired  support.  To  this  test  he  brought 
everything.  That  he  made  no  mistakes,  need  not 
be  said,  for  he  was  a  man,  fallible  like  the  rest  of 
us.  His  greatest  admirers  have  never  felt  them- 
selves bound  to  any  position  he  held,  unless  he 
was  able  to  show  his  authority  for  it  in  the  Word 
of  God.  This  was  his  test,  and  it  is  theirs  like- 
wise. He  was  no  mere  theological  eclectic,  select- 
ing from  the  great  babel  about  him  whatever 
might  happen  to  strike  his  own  fancy  ;  but  a  rev- 
erent and  thoughtful  Christian,  seeking  for  the 
faith  and  ordinances  of  the  church  in  the  teaching 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


69 


of  the  inspired  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
If  he  felt  a  certain  admiration  for  the  English  and 
Scotch  Independents,  Baptist  or  Pedo-baptist,  it 
was  mainly  because  they  refused  to  be  bound  by 
human  creeds,  and  bravely  asserted  their  right  to 
the  freedom  wherewith  Christ  had  made  them  free. 
That  traces  of  the  influence  of  Sandeman  and  the 
Haldanes  may  be  found  in  his  writings,  is  unques- 
tionable. There  are  traces  of  Alexandrian  influ- 
ence in  John's  Grospel,  as  every  scholar  knows — 
whether  he  chooses  to  say  so  or  not — and  yet  that 
fact  counts  nothing  against  John's  originality  as  a 
writer,  or  the  genuineness  of  the  book  which  bears 
his  name.  A  work  free  from  any  influence  from 
without  would  be  a  strange  literary  product  in- 
deed. A  theologian  whose  views  should  betray 
no  contact  with  the  work  of  other  thinkers,  might 
indeed  be  considered  original,  but  it  is  not  likely 
that  he  would  be  able  to  say  anything  worthy  of 
the  world's  attention. 

In  this  perfectly  legitimate  way,  and  in  no 
other,  did  Mr.  Campbell  profit  by  the  labors  of 
other  men.  The  sources  of  authority  which  he 
recognized  were  in  the  Scriptures,  and  he  neither 
received  nor  rejected  anything  without  reference 
to  scriptural  teaching.  As  regards  his  real  in- 
debtedness to  Sandeman  and  the  Scotch  Baptist 
leaders,  there  has  been  no  pretence  of  conceal- 
ment. Prof.  Whitsitt  naively  confesses,  even 
while  making  a  show  of  original  discovery,  his  de- 


70 


OliTOIN  OF  THE 


pendence  upon  Mr.  C.'s  biographer  for  the  facts 
which  explain  the  coincidences  he  had  otherwise 
noted.  This  should  have  taught  him  that  his 
imaginary  contributions  to  history  are  only  glean- 
ings from  fields  which  have  been  duly  harvested 
by  others. 

Mr.  Campbell's  absolute  independence,  as  a 
Biblical  student,  of  all  uninspired  authority,  is 
nowhere  seen  more  clearly  than  in  the  comparison 
of  his  views  with  those  of  the  men  from  whom  it  is 
pretended  he  borrowed  them.  He  was  a  Sande- 
manian,  says  Prof.  Whitsitt ;  and  yet  Sandeman 
was  a  Calvinist,  a  Pedo-baptist,  and  practiced 
foot- washing,  and  observed  love-feasts^while  Mr. 
Campbell  was  neither  a  Calvinist  nor  Pedo-bap- 
tist, and  held  not  at  all  to  the  Sandemanian  cus- 
toms here  mentioned.  He  had  no  sympathy  with 
the  notion  that  justification  by  faith  means  the 
imputation  of  "  the  bare  belief  of  the  bare  truth," 
for  righteousness,  exclusive  of  those  holy  disposi- 
tions which  are  the  invariable  effects  of  a  sincere 
belief.  On  the  contrary,  he  always  held  that  faith 
justifies  and  saves,  only  because  it  does  include — 
as  a  cause  includes  its  effects — both  change  of 
heart  and  obedience  of  life.  He  never  held  that 
faith  is  purely  intellectual,  as  Prof.  W.  insinuates. 
I  suspect,  if  he  had  undertaken  to  be  closely  ana- 
lytical (a  thing  he  seldom  attempted),  he  would 
have  said  that  in  its  ultimate  ground,  faith  is  that 
"act  of  the  mind  by  which  the  sinner  accepts 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST 


71 


Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  or  "  faith  is 
the  belief  of  the  gospel ; "  or  it  is  the  receiving  of 
"  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  his  Son.''  He 
did  say  expressly  :  u  Faith  is  the  belief  of  the  gos- 
pel." "  You  can  make  nothing  else  out  of  it,  un- 
less you  tarn  it  into  confidence"  He  might  have 
said,  if  pressed  for  strict  accuracy,  that  u  confi- 
dence is  faith  by  metonomy ;"  but  with  him  faith 
and  confidence  were  always  held  to  be  practically 
identical,  however  he  might  have  distinguished 
between  them  as  a  matter  of  precise  definition. 
He  did  not  share  at  all,  therefore,  in  that  barren 
intellectualism.  which  is  charged — whether  justly 
or  otherwise — against  Sandeman.  What  he  really 
lipid,  was  this:  faith  is  the  sincere  and  intelligent 
belief  of  the  gospel ;  and  such  belief  always  car- 
ries in  it,  by  implication,  a  hearty  personal  confi- 
dence, or  trust,  in  Christ  as  Redeemer  and  Savior 
of  men.  He  never  conceived  of  belief  as  exclusive 
of  trust,  any  more  than  of  pious  and  godly  aspira- 
tions and  volitions  as  exclusive  of  belief.  If  San- 
demanianism  may  be  described  as  "  intellect ual- 
ism"  Mr.  Campbell  was  no  Sandemanian.  Faith 
which  did  not  include  in  it  implicitly  both  holi- 
ness of  heart  and  life,  was  of  no  account  at  all,  as 
he  understood  the  Scriptures.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
from  the  Baptist  point  of  view,  he  was  more  open 
to  the  charge  of  including  too  much  in  faith  than 
too  little.  He  never  practically  separated  faith, 
in  justification  and  salvation,  from  those  godly 


72 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


emotions  and  activities  which  are  superinduced  * 
by  means  of  it.  As  he  looked  at  the  work  of  re- 
demption, the  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  to  save 
only  believers,  because  there  is  no  other  way  in 
which  gospel  power  can  be  conveyed  to  the  hearts 
and  lives  of  men  than  by  faith.  It  is  not  what 
faith  is,  as  a  mere  correct  verbal  definition,  that 
God  cares  for,  but  what  it  means  as  a  source  or 
instrument  of  divine  power  in  a  human  soul  and 
life.  It  is  chiefly  the  grand  possibility  of  a  trans- 
formed hitman  life  that  Quakes  faith  valuable  in 
the  sight  of  God.  As  Mr.  Campbell  looked  at  it, 
nay,  as  all  the  Disciples  of  Christ  see  it,  if  it  were 
not  for  this  wonderful  possibility  of  making  sinful 
men  grand  and  god-like  in  thought  and  will  and 
action,  we  should  never  have  had  a  word  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  from  the  lips  or  pens  of  inspired 
men.  God  counts  faith  to  the  believer  only  for 
that  which  he  knows  is  made  possible  to  him  by 
means  of  it !  It  is  on  this  principle  that  faith  is 
"  imputed  for  righteousness,"  as  an  act  of  grace, 
and  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  And  this  is  the 
opposite  pole  of  doctrine  from  that  of  Sandeman 
and  the  Scotch  Baptists,  as  even  Prof.  Whitsitt 
would  be  able  to  see  if  he  could  only  get  the  Bap- 
tist film  removed  from  his  eyes.  No  partisan  ever 
sees  truth  otherwise  than  from  a  single  angle  of 
vision,  and  therefore  imperfectly. 

But,  as  already  stated,  Mr.  Campbell  saw  clearly 
the  fact  that  as  regards  priority  of  regeneration 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


73 


(or  change  of  heart)  to  faith,  Andrew  Fuller  was 
wrong,  while  Sandenian  and  M'Lean,  who  placed 
it  among  the  effects  of  faith,  were  certainly  right. 
If  he  really  owed  this  view  to  those  men,  his  in- 
debtedness was  indeed  great.  It  was  the  most 
fundamental  conception  of  what  may  be  called  his 
theology.  It  determined  his  view  of  divine  influ- 
ence in  conversion  and  sane  tinea  tion,  as  he  himself 
defined  those  terms,  beyond  any  manner  of  doubt. 
Not  that  it  led  him  to  deny  the  active  presence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  either  in  regeneration  or  in  the 
struggles  and  conflicts  of  the  Christian  life.  He 
made  no  such  denial  in  either  case.  What  he  did 
do  was  to  explain  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  mediated  by  the  Word  of  God,  i.  <?.,  as  exerted 
through  the  Word  of  God  believed.  The  Scrip- 
tures represent  the  saving  power  as  reaching  the 
heart  by  faith.  But  whatever  is  done  before  faith, 
is  done  without  faith,  and  independently  of  divine 
truth,  as  the  means.  Nothing  could  be  plainer. 
Hence,  Mr.  Campbell  did  not  accept  Fuller's  doc- 
trine of  a  change  of  heart  in  order  to  faith.  On 
the  contrary,  he  steadfastly  held  that  all  saving- 
power  reaches  the  heart  through  faith.  The  ever 
present  Spirit  of  God  moves  upon  the  human  soul 
in,  and  by,  and  through,  truth  believed,  and  not  in 
a  way  which  dispenses*,  at  any  step  in  the  saving- 
process,  either  with  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Christ,  or 
with  the  sincere  and  intelligent  belief  of  it.  This 
is  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God  beyond  any 


74 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


sort  of  doubt.  If  Sandeman  and  M '  Lean  saw  it 
(which  I  think  they  did  not,  unless  very  dimly), 
then  the  world  owes  them  a  great  debt,  certainly. 
That  Mr.  Campbell  saw  it,  admits  no  denial.  And 
when  we  shall  all  see  things  in  the  bright  light  of 
the  Eternal  Throne,  the  fact  that  he  not  only  saw 
it,  but  that  he  helped  the  world  to  see  it,  and  so  to 
disengage  itself  from  many  superstitions,  will  be 
regarded  as  one  of  the  mightiest  achievements  of 
his  long  and  useful  life. 

It  is  perhaps  true  that  Mr.  Campbell  and  the 
Discijues  have  made  no  great  original  contribution 
to  what  is  properly  known  as  theology.  Our  mis- 
sion under  God  has  not  lain  in  that  particular 
direction.  The  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  were 
scarcely  theologians  in  our  modern  aecej)tance  of 
the  term,  though  their  teaching  contains  the  germs 
of  all  the  true  theology  which  the  world  has  ever 
had.  They  did  not  trouble  themselves  over  the 
nice  distinctions,  which  theology  seeks,  often 
vainly  to  settle.  They  thought  in  concrete  rather 
than  abstract  forms.  They  were  concerned  not 
so  much  about  establishing  "  doctrines,"  as 
about  saving  the  souls  of  men.  They  were 
preachers  of  Christ's  gospel  to  a  lost  world,  not 
theological  professors,  working  in  a  realm  of  ab- 
stractions. I  do  not  underestimate  the  work  of 
the  theologian ;  I  magnify  that  of  the  preacher. 
God  sends  the  preacher;  the  theologian  too 
often  sends  himself.    The  gospel  was  before  the- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


75 


ology,  and  it  is  better  than  theology.  The  teacher 
of  "  doctrines "  may  sometimes  help  us ;  but 
oftener,  perhaps,  he  misleads  and  confuses  us. 
What  the  sinner  needs,  above  all  things,  is  to 
have  Christ  brought  intelligently  to  his  heart. 
The  highest  knowledge  in  divine  things  is  to  know 
how  to  bring  saving  truth  to  the  understandings 
and  consciences  of  men.  In  this  direction,  mainly, 
have  we  found  our  work.  There  is  no  egotism 
whatever  in  saying  that  the  popular  gospel  procla- 
mation has  been  vastly  clarified  through  our  in- 
strumentality. Our  influence  extends  very  far 
outside  the  bounds  of  our  personal  labors,  and  has 
reacted  upon  every  orthodox  sect  in  Christendom. 
This  is  no  idle  boast,  though  men  like  Mr.  W. 
may  scoff  at  it.  More  than  any  other  people 
known  to  me,  the  Baptists  have  profited  by  our 
labors.  They  may  not  choose  to  acknowledge  the 
fact,  but  it  is  none  the  less  a  fact  on  that  account. 
The  Baptist  pulpit  is  not  what  it  was  fifty  years 
ago.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  this  to  those 
who  are  able  to  recall  the  days  when  more  than 
half  the  Associated  Baptists  in  the  West  were 
anti-missionaries,  if  not  thorough  antinomians.  I 
know  what  I  am  talking  about,  and  the  Whitsitts 
may  just  as  well  listen  patiently.  The  change  is 
undeniable.  The  entire  credit  of  it,  of  course,  is 
not  to  be  given  to  the  Disciples ;  neither  do  they 
claim  it.  But  Baptist  "  experiences  "  are  not  what 
they  used  te  be ;  and  for  whatever  good  effects  have 


76 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


been  wrought  at  this  particular  point,  they  are 
largely  indebted  to  the  Disciples.  Certainly  we 
allow  somewhat  of  the  change  to  the  general 
growth  of  intelligence  in  their  own  ministry  and 
people,  but  even  here  the  Disciples  have  helped 
them  far  more  than  the}"  are  willing  to  confess. 

But  to  get  back  to  theology.  The  question 
whether  regeneration — meaning  thereby  change  of 
heart — is  before  faith,  or  through  faith,  is  the  chief 
theological  issue  we  make  with  the  denominations 
of  our  time.  Other  questions  are  subordinate  to 
this,  or  are  involved  in  this.  The  order  of  the  Cal- 
vinist  is  : 

(1)  Regeneration ;  (2)  Repentance ;  (3)  Faith ; 
(4)  Turning  to  the  Lord. 

The  order  of  the  Armenian  is  : 

(1)  Prevenient,  or  enabling  grace;  (2)  Repent- 
ance and  seeking  the  Lord ;  (3)  Faith  and  regen- 
eration ;  (4)  Turning  to  the  Lord. 

The  order  of  the  New  Testament  is  : 

(1)  The  intelligent  and  hearty  belief  of  the  gos- 
pel ;  (2)  Repentance  upon  (epi)  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ;  (3)  The  actual  turning  to  God;  (/.  e.,  In 
confession  of  Christ  and  baptism,  and  thereafter 
in  obedience  to  all  our  Lord's  commandments.) 

In  this  last  arrangement,  repentance  is  given  as 
equivalent  to  change  of  heart,  as  it  is  indeed  the 
Xew  Testament  designation  of  it.  Such  a  recon- 
struction as  is  here  implied,  when  it  has  been 
firmly  accomplished  in  the  popular  mind,  will  put 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


77 


the  gospel  message  into  harmony  with  the  entire 
New  Testament  representation,  and  also  into  ac- 
cord with  right  reason,  as  disclosed  in  the  inexora- 
ble laws  of  human  thought  and  experience.  A 
reformation  of  the  Fullerism  and  Baptism  of  our 
time  must  take  place,  or  its  days  are  as  certainly 
numbered  (whether  many  or  few)  as  truth  and 
rationality  are  destined  to  triumph  over  an  obsti- 
nate adherence  to  antiquated  errors  and  supersti- 
tions.   The  question  returns  therefore  : 

Is  regeneration  (change  of  heart)  before  faith, 
or  tlirough  faith  3  Does  grace  win  men  to  God 
through  the  truth  belie wed '?  Or,  is  ';  a  holy  prin- 
ciple implanted  "  before  faith,  and  without  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  Gospel  ?    What  do  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Whitsitt  is  not  the  first  Baptist  scribe  who 
has  imagined  that  he  discovered  a  connection  be- 
tween the  views  of  A.  Campbell  and  those  of  San- 
deman  and  the  Haldanes.  If  no  more  than  this 
had  been  asserted,  the  matter  need  have  attracted 
little  notice,  or  none  at  all.  I  have  already  said 
that  traces  of  such  an  influence  are  observable  ; 
and  I  add  here,  chiefly  in  the  earlier  stages  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  career,  though  it  is  not  intended  to 
deny  that  he  received  some  permanent  impressions 
from  such  sources.  The  point,  however  is  this  : 
whatever  real  indebtedness  there  was  in  the  case, 
has  always  been  an  open  fact  among  the  Disciples, 
and  there  was  never  on  Mr.  Campbell's  part,  or  on 
theirs,  the  least  effort,  or  even  wish,  to  conceal  it. 


78 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


Ml.  Whiteitt  has  discovered  nothing.  He  has  re- 
vived a  campaign  trick  which  originated  in  the 
days  of  the  Christian  Baptist,  and  received  from 
Mr.  C.  himself  such  attention  as  he  thought  it  de- 
served. The  only  strange  thing  in  the  matter  is 
that  our  doughty  professor  should  have  known  so 
little  of  our  history  as  to  imagine  that  the  resemb- 
lances in  some  minor  matters  which  have  come  to 
his  knowledge  in  the  course  of  his  historical  stud- 
ies, had  never  attracted  the  attention  of  any  one 
else.  In  the  third  volume  of  the  Christian  Baptist, 
page  227  (Burnett's  edition)  may  be  found  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Campbell  from  Rev.  R.  B.  Semple,  a  distin- 
guished Baptist  of  that  day,  and  immediately  fol- 
lowing it  Mr.  Campbell's  reply.  It  suits  our  pur- 
pose here  to  make  some  extracts  from  these  rather 
ancient  documents. 

Dr.  Semple  begins  with  a  personal  compliment 
to  Mr.  Campbell.  u  Your  preaching/'  he  says, 
"reminds  me  of  Apollos,  who  displayed,  as  we 
moderns  say,  great  talents,  or  as  the  Scripture 
says,  was  an  eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the 
Scriptures.''  But  even  Apollos  submitted  to  be 
taught  in  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly,  and  so 
Dr.  S.  hojDes  he  may  be  able  to  do  a  like  service 
for  Mr.  Campbell.  44  So  far  as  I  can  judge,"  he 
continues,  "  by  your  writings  or  preachings,  you 
are  substantially  a  Sandemanian  or  Haldanian.  I 
know  you  differ  from  them  in  some  points,  but  in 
substance  you  occupy  their  ground.    Now  I  am 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


79 


not  about  to  fall  out  with  them  as  heretics  of  the 
black  sort.  I  think  they  have  many  excellent 
things  among  them,  things  I  would  gladly  see 
more  prevalent  among  us.  But  in  some  respects 
they  are  far  from  pure  Christianity."  He  then 
proceeds  to  state  the  counts  in  his  indictment. 
"  Forbearance,"  he  tells  us,  "  is  certainly  a  Chris- 
tian grace  strongly  recommended  both  by  precept 
and  example,  in  the  word  of  God."  But  in  this 
Christian  grace  of  forbearance,  Dr.  S.  found  the 
Haldanians  greatly  deficient.  He  did  not  regard 
them  as  altogether  destitute  of  it,  but  "  they  limit- 
ed its  exercise  to  too  narrow  bounds."  In  all 
church  decisions  they  demanded  unanimity ;  all 
must  think  alike.  This,  Mr.  S.  regarded  as  impos- 
sible. Men  will  differ  in  opinion,  and  forbearance 
becomes  a  necessity.  "  Among  the  Haldanians, 
judging,"  he  says,  "from  their  writings,  a  gentle 
spirit  is  rarely  to  be  found."  He  considered  Mr. 
Campbell  also  as  conspicuously  faulty  in  this  re- 
spect. He  distinguishes  between  his  writings  and 
his  personal  bearing  in  private  circles.  In  such 
circles  he  found  him,  "as  a  man,  mild,  pleasant 
and  affectionate  ; "  but  his  writings  "  were  rigid 
and  satirical  beyond  all  the  bounds  of  Scripture 
allowance."  He  regards  the  Christian  Baptist  as 
strikingly  deficient  in  a  New  Testament  spirit. 

Touching  Mr.  Campbell's  views,  he  says,  "On 
some  other  points,  I  think  they  are  dangerous,  un- 
less you  are  misunderstood;  such  as  casting  off 


80 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


the  Old  Testament,  exploding  experimental  reli- 
gion in  its  common  acceptation,  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  gifts  in  the  present  day,  commonly  believ- 
ed to  exist  among  all  spiritual  Christians,  such  as 
preaching,  etc.  Some  other  of  your  opinions, 
though  true,  are  pushed  to  extremes,  such  as  those 
upon  the  use  of  creeds,  confessions,  etc.,  etc." 

uIn  short,"  he  presently  adds,  "your  views  are 
generally  so  contrary  to  those  of  the  Baptists  in 
general,  that  if  a  party  were  to  go  fully  into  the 
practice  of  your  principles,  I  should  say  a  new 
sect  had  sprung  up,  radically  different  from  the 
Baptists  as  they  now  are." 

It  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  stop  to  point  out 
the  crudeness  of  Dr.  Semple's  representation  of 
Mr.  Campbell's  spirit  and  aims.  It  is  the  fate  of 
every  new  movement  to  be  misunderstood,  and 
often  to  be  intentionally  misrepresented.  Of  the 
latter,  Dr.  S.  must  be  wholly  acquitted.  Mr.  C.  al- 
ways entertained  the  highest  personal  regard  for 
him.  But  he  apprehended  the  new  plea  imperfect- 
ly. This,  perhaps,  was  inevitable,  and  no  one  is 
less  disposed  than  the  writer  of  this  review  to  fight 
over  again  the  battles  of  the  past,  wherever  it  is 
clear  that  they  grew  out  of  mere  mistakes  of  the 
understanding.  But  touching  the  question  of  de- 
pendence upon  Sandeman  and  the  Haldanes,  we 
shall  hear  Mr.  Campbell  himself.  I  must  be  al- 
lowed to  quote  at  some  length  : 

"  You  say  :  '  So  far  as  I  can  judge  by  your  writ- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHKIST. 


81 


ings  and  preaching,  you  are  substantially  a  Sande- 
manian  or  Haldanian.'  This  is  substantially  af- 
firmed of  me  by  many  who  have  never  seen  nor 
read  one  volume  of  the  writings  of  Sandeman  or 
Haldane;  and  with  the  majority  it  has  great 
weight,  who  attach  to  these  names  something  as 
heretical  and  damnable  as  the  tenets  of  Cerinthus 
and  the  Mcolaitans.  I  have  not  myself  ever  read 
all  the  works  of  these  men,  but  I  have  read  more 
of  them  than  I  approve,  and  more  of  them  than 
they  who  impute  to  me  their  opinions  as  heresy." 
.  .  .  "  Concerning  Sandeman  and  Haldane,  how 
they  can  be  associated  under  one  species,  is  to  me 
a  matter  of  surprise.  The  former  a  Pedo-Baptist, 
the  latter  a  Baptist ;  the  former  as  keen,  as  sharp, 
as  censorious,  as  acrimonious  as  Juvenal ;  the  lat- 
ter as  mild,  as  charitable,  as  condescending  as 
any  man  this  age  has  produced.  As  authors  I 
know  them  well.  The  one  is  like  a  mountain- 
storm  that  roars  among  the  cliffs ;  the  other  like 
the  balmy  zephyrs  that  breathe  upon  banks  of 
violets.  That  their  views  were  the  same  on  some 
points  is  as  true  as  that  Luther,  Calvin  and  Wes- 
ley agreed  in  many  points. 

"I  was  once  puzzled  on  the  subject  of  Hervey's 
dialogues  ;  I  mean  his  Theron  and  Aspasio.  I  ap- 
propriated one  winter  season  for  examining  this 
subject.  I  assembled  all  the  leading  writers  of 
that  day  on  these  subjects.  I  laid  before  me  Rob- 
ert Sandeman,  Hervey,  Marshall,  Bellamy,  Glass, 

6 


82 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


Cudworth,  and  others  of  minor  fame  in  this  con- 
troversy. I  not  only  read,  but  studied  and  wrote 
off  in  miniature  their  respective  views.  I  had 
Paul  and  Peter,  James  and  John,  on  the  same 
table ;  I  took  nothing  upon  trust.  I  do  not  care 
for  the  authority,  reputation,  or  standing  of  one  of 
the  systems,  a  grain  of  sand.  I  never  weighed  the 
consequences  of  embracing  any  one  of  the  systems 
as  affecting  my  standing  or  reputation  in  the 
world.  Truth — not  who  says  so — was  my  sole  ob- 
ject. I  found  much  entertainment  in  the  investi- 
gation. And  I  will  not  blush,  nor  do  I  fear,  to 
say,  that  in  the  controversy,  Sandeman  was  like  a 
giant  among  dwarfs.  He  was  like  Samson  with 
the  gates  and  posts  of  Gaza  upon  his  shoulders. 
I  was  the  most  prejudiced  against  him,  and  the 
most  in  favor  of  Hervey,  when  I  commenced  this 
course  of  reading.  Yet  I  now  believe  that  not  one 
of  them  was  exactly  on  the  track  of  the  apostles. 
I  have  also  read  Fuller's  strictures  on  Sandeman- 
ianism,  which  I  suppose  to  be  the  medium  of  most 
of  the  information  possessed  on  that  subject  in 
this  country.    This  is  the  poorest  performance 

Andrew  Fuller  ever  gave  the  world."  "  And  the 

fact  is  (which  he  indirectly  acknowledges)  that 
Andrew  Fuller  was  indebted  more  to  John  Glass 
and  Robert  Sandeman  than  to  any  two  men  in 
Britain  for  the  best  part  of  his  views.  I  will  not 
pause  to  inquire  whether  he  wrote  those  strictures 
to  save  himself  from  the  obloquy  of  being  called  a 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


83 


Sandemanian,  as  some  conjecture,  or  whether  he 
wrote  them  to  give  a  blow  to  Archibald  M '  Lean 
of  Edinburg,  who  had  driven  him  from  the  arena 
some  years  before  ;  but  I  will  say  it  is  a  very  poor 
production,  and  proves  nothing  that  either  Robert 
Sandeman  or  Archibald  M '  Lean  felt  any  concern 
in  opposing." 

Mr.  C.  further  says,  "  that  while  he  was  well 
acquainted  with  all  this  controversy,  and  while  he 
acknowledged  himself  debtor  to  Glass,  Sandeman, 
Hervey,  Cudworth,  Fuller  and  M'Lean,  as  much 
as  to  Luther,  Calvin  and  John  Wesley,  he  can- 
didly and  unequivocally  avowed  that  he  did  not 
believe  any  one  of  them  had  a  clear  and  consistent 
view  of  the  Christian  religion  as  a  whole." 

Still  further,  he  continues :  "  While  I  thus  ac- 
knowledge myself  a  debtor  to  those  persons,  I 
must  say  that  the  debt,  in  most  instances,  is  a 
very  small  one.  I  am  indebted,  upon  the  whole, 
as  much  to  their  errors  as  to  their  virtues,  for 
these  have  been  to  me  as  beacons  to  the  mariner, 
who  might  otherwise  have  run  upon  the  rocks  and 
shoals.  *  *  *  For  the  last  ten  years  I  have 
not  looked  into  the  works  of  any  of  these  men, 
and  have  lost  the  taste  which  I  once  had  for  con- 
troversial reading  of  this  sort.  And  during  this 
period  my  inquiries  into  the  Christian  religion 
have  been  almost  exclusively  confined  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. *  *  *  I  call  no  man  master  upon  the 
earth;  and  although  my  own  father  has  been  a 


84 


OKIGIN  OF  THE 


diligent  student  and  teacher  of  the  Christian  relig- 
ion since  his  youth,  and,  in  my  opinion,  under- 
stands this  book  as  well  as  any  person  with  whom 
I  am  acquainted,  yet  there  is  no  man  with  whom 
I  have  debated  more,  and  reasoned  more  than  he. 
I  have  been  so  long  disciplined  in  the  school  of 
free  inquiry,  that  if  I  know  my  own  mind,  there  is 
not  a  man  upon  the  earth  whose  authority  can  in- 
fluence me  any  further  than  he  comes  with  the  au- 
thority of  evidence,  reason  and  truth." 

The  ring  of  these  sentences  is  very  clear.  There 
is  no  affectation,  not  the  least,  of  concealment. 
Indebtedness — such  as  really  existed — is  frankly 
acknowledged ;  yet  the  narrow  limitations  of  such 
indebtedness — a  fact  which  is  as  certain  as  the 
other — is  distinctly  affirmed. 

In  the  Christian  Baptist  (Vol.  V.  Page  398-400), 
may  be  found  another  letter  from  Dr.  Semple,  with 
another  rej^ly  from  Mr.  Campbell.  It  seems  that 
some  one  writing  in  the  Baptist  Recorder  over  the 
signature  of  Querens,  desired  to  see  Dr.  S.  enter 
the  lists  as  a  debater  against  Mr.  Campbell's 
teaching.  To  this,  the  good  doctor  replied  that 
there  was  no  need  of  such  a  discussion.  He  says: 
"Mr.  Campbell's  views  are  not  new,  at  least  not 
many  of  them — Sandeman,  Glass,  the  Haldanes 
were  master  spirits  upon  this  system  many  years 
ago.  And  they  were  effectually  answered  by  Ful- 
ler and  others.  *  *  *  If  I  am  called  upon, 
then,  to  establish  my  assertions  as  to  Mr.  Camp- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


85 


bell's  views,  I  refer  Querens,  and  all  such,  to  Ful- 
ler's work  against  Sandeman,  &c.  I  do  not  know 
a  word  in  it  that  I  would  alter."  To  this,  Mr. 
Campbell  responds  as  follows  : 

"Nor  will  it  do  to  say  that  my  views,  or  the 
cause  which  I  advocate,  has  been  already  refuted 
by  any  other  person.  For  this  will  not  be  satis- 
factory. To  call  me  a  Sandemanian  or  Haldanian, 
a  G-lassite,  an  Arian,  or  a  Unitarian,  and  to  tell 
the  world  that  the  Sandemanians,  Haldanians,  etc., 
etc.,  have  done  so  and  so,  and  have  been  refuted 
by  such  and  such  a  person,  is  too  cheap  a  method 
of  maintaining  human  traditions,  and  too  weak  to 
oppose  reason  and  revelation.  You  might  as  well 
nickname  me  a  Sabellian,  an  Anthropomorphist,  a 
Gnostic,  a  Nicolaitan,  or  an  Anabaptist,  as  to 
palm  upon  me  any  of  the  above  systems.  I  do 
most  unequivocally  and  sincerely  renounce  each 
and  every  one  of  these  systems.  He  that  imputes 
any  of  these  systems  to  me,  and  ranks  me  amongst 
the  supporters  of  them,  reproaches  me.  I  do  not 
by  this  mean  to  say  that  there  are  not  in  each  and 
all  these  systems  6  many  excellent  things,'  as 
Bishop  Semple  himself  once  said  of  them."  "  Any 
one  that  is  well  read  in  these  systems,  must  know 
that  the  Christian  Baptist  advocates  a  cause,  and 
an  order  of  things  which  not  one  of  them  em- 
braced. I  repeat,  you  have  only  to  apply  the 
golden  rule  to  yourself  in  this  instance,  and  ask 
yourself  how  you  would  like  an  opponent  to  call 


86 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


you  a  Fullerite,  a  Hopkinsian,  an  Anabaptist,  or 
something  worse,  in  order  to  refute  your  senti- 
ments, when  you  cordially  renounce  the  systems 
laid  to  your  charge." 

In  the  above  extract  I  have  italicized,  as  the 
reader  will  notice,  this  one  sentence:  "I  do  most 
unequivocally  and  sincerely  renounce  each  and 
every  one  of  these  systems."  That  this  declara- 
tion was  not  only  sincere  on  Mr.  Campbell's  part, 
but  that  it  expressed  the  simple  fact  of  his  rela- 
tion to  these  systems,  will  not  be  denied  by  any 
one  who  understands  either  the  systems  in  ques- 
tion or  the  aims  and  principles  of  Mr.  Campbell. 
And  this  in  spite  of  any  similarity  in  the  use  of 
phrases,  such  as  "  the  ancient  gospel,"  "  the  an- 
cient order,"  etc.,  or  any  agreement  in  certain  doc- 
trinal aspects  of  these  systems,  which  neither  Mr. 
Campbell  nor  the  Disciples  have  ever  denied. 
The  most  fundamental  conception  in  our  move- 
ment, that  which  gave  the  mould  and  form  to  the 
whole  of  it,  lies  entirely  outside,  as  we  shall  see 
presently,  of  all  these  systems.  But  meantime  we 
need  to  pursue  the  present  phase  of  our  investiga- 
tion a  little  further,  before  dismissing  it  entirely. 
Elder  William  Jones,  of  London,  England,  a  name 
not  unknown  to  fame,  was  a  zealous  Baptist  of  the 
Scotch,  or  Haldanian  school.  Between  this  gentle- 
man and  Mr.  Campbell  there  occurred  a  note- 
worthy correspondence,  parts  of  which  bear  im- 
mediately upon  the  subject  now  before  us.  Mr. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


87 


Jones  seemed,  for  a  time,  to  be  greatly  impressed 
with  Mr.  Campbell's  work  in  America,  and  notic- 
ing certain  features  of  it,  did  not  hesitate  to 
identify  it,  in  essentials,  with  the  system  which  lie 
himself  advocated.  He  speaks  of  the  "  Scotch 
Baptist  churches"  —  addressing  Mr.  Campbell  — 
u  out  of  which  yours  in  America  took  their  origin, 
as  I  think  you  will  not  deny."  He  seems  to  feel 
that  Mr.  C.  was  scarcely  willing  to  do  justice  to 
these  Scotch  Baptists,  or  to  acknowledge  the  real 
extent  of  his  indebtedness  to  them.  He  more  than 
intimates  the  existence  of  some  sort  of  vainglory, 
in  the  desire  to  appear  more  original  than  he 
really  was.  This  desire,  he  thought,  had  led  him 
to  undervalue  the  work  of  Archibald  M  '  Lean  and 
his  coadjutors,  Braidwood,  Ingles,  Peddie,  etc., 
etc.,  in  the  Scotch  Baptist  connexion.  In  this  vein 
he  wrote  a  long  letter,  which  will  be  found  in  the 
Millennial  Harbinger,  for  1835,  page  295.  I  need 
make  no  extracts  from  this  letter.  It  is  a  spirited 
vindication  of  the  Scotch  Baptists,  but  betrays  an 
utter  inability  to  distinguish  between  them  and 
the  movement  Mr.  Campbell  was  leading  in  xlnier- 
ica.  This,  perhaps,  should  not  be  thought  strange, 
since  mere  incidental  resemblances  in  detail  are 
often  mistaken  by  thoughtless  persons  for  identity 
in  essential  principles.  Besides,  Elder  Jones'  ac- 
quaintance with  Mr.  Campbell's  writings  was  at 
this  time  very  imperfect,  and  he  was  not  nearly  so 
anxious  to  claim  kinship  with  him  when  he  dis- 


88 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


covered  a  disposition  on  Mr.  C.'s  part  to  treat 
somewhat  irreverently  the  strict  Calvinism  of  the 
communities  whose  cause  lie  plead  so  earnestly. 
True,  he  repudiates  "  hyper-Calvinism,''  and  says, 
"My  recollection  does  not  at  this  moment  furnish 
me  with  the  names  of  three  individuals  who  are 
tinctured"  with  it.  But,  at  the  same  time,  Mr. 
Jones,  if  not  a  k*  hyper-Calvinist,"  was  really  a 
Calvinist  of  a  very  "  strait"  fashion,  as  the  event 
clearly  showed.  This,  however,  would  have  made 
no  difference  with  Mr.  Campbell,  as  regards  the 
matter  of  fellowship.  The  difference  in  this  case 
came  from  the  other  side.  And  this  single  fact 
discloses,  partially  at  least,  the  wide  difference 
between  the  two  systems.  But  I  wish  to  quote 
briefly  from  Mr.  Campbell's  reply  to  Elder  Jones' 
letter.    I  begin  near  the  close  of  the  103d  page : 

"  How  much  the  reformation  for  which  we  plead 
is  indebted  to  the  labors  of  those  revered  fathers 
of  the  Scotch  Baptist  churches,  I  am  not  able  to 
say.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  greatly  indebted  to 
all  the  reformers,  from  Martin  Luther  down  to 
John  Wesley.  I  could  not  enumerate  or  particu- 
larize the  individuals,  living  and  dead,  who  have 
assisted  in  forming  my  mind.  I  am  in  some  way 
indebted  to  some  person  or  other  for  every  idea  I 
have  on  every  subject.  Dilworth  and  McCrae, 
with  their  spelling-books — Euclid,  Locke,  Bacon 
and  Newton,  and  ten  thousand  others,  cast  an  eye 
upon  me." — "How   many  have,  in  the  way  of 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


89 


moral  causation,  excited  my  mind  to  this  train  of 
reasoning,  or  to  the  examination  of  this  fact  or 
that  incident,  I  am  now,  and  will  be  while  life 
lasts,  wholly  unable  to  say."  *  *  *  "I  may 
therefore  be  indirectly  indebted  to  Archibald 
M '  Lean,  for  example,  more  than  I  am  aware. 
A  few  years  after  my  immersion,  I  read  one  vol- 
ume of  his  tracts,  and  I  don't  know  that  I  have 
ever  read  but  his  review  of  Wardlaw's  Lectures, 
his  Reply  to  Fuller,  a  Defense  of  Believer's  Bap- 
tism, The  Substance  of  two  discourses  on  Faith, 
preached  at  Kingston-on-Hull,  and  a  treatise  on 
the  Commission."  *  *  "  But  while  on  this  sub- 
ject of  originality,  and  the  acknowledgment  of 
literary  and  moral  debts  of  thought,  I  soon  found 
that  our  worthy  friend  M  '  Lean  and  the  Edinburg 
school  had  drawn  largely  and  liberally  from  the 
writings  and  labors  of  Robert  Ferrier,  Jas.  Smith, 
John  Glass,  etc.,  that  school  which  began  its  oper- 
ations in  1728,  about  40  years  before  the  date  of 
the  Scotch  Baptist  churches."  *  *  "This 
egotistic  narrative  is  due  to  my  Scotch  and  English 
brethren.  I  would  have  them  know  that  we 
are  in  possession  of  all  their  knowledge,  and 
thankfully  acknowledge  our  debts  to  the  great  and 
wise  and  good  men  who  have  gone  before  us.  I 
thank  my  Heavenly  Father  that  I  was  born  at  the 
proper  time,  and  on  the  best  spot  on  the  earth, 
and  surrounded  with  the  best  set  of  circumstances 
to  afford  me  the  best  religious  education  which  the 


90 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


19th  century  could  furnish."  And  yet  after  all 
these  acknowledgments,  Mr.  C.  goes  on  to  insist 
that  he  had  "  views  of  the  Christian  Institution 
wholly  new  as  far  as  the  works  of  all  the  schools 
to  which  he  had  alluded  were  concerned.'1  It  is 
scarcely  worth  while  to  say  that  these  things 
wholly  new,  as  regards  these  schools,  were  consid- 
ered by  Mr.  C,  and  are  now  considered  by  all  the 
Disciples,  as  the  most  fundamental  and  far-reach- 
ing features  of  his  attempt  to  restore  the  apostolic 
gospel  aiid  institutions  to  the  world.  Nor  can  any 
well-informed  man  question  this  fact,  unless  his 
prejudices  have  gotten  the  better  of  his  judgment. 
The  resemblance  to  the  Scotch  Baptists  is  merely  a 
coincidence  in  certain  features,  while  the  inform- 
ing principle,  the  moulding  and  fashioning  idea  of 
the  later  movement  is  altogether  different.  We  do 
not  care  to  insist  upon  this  fact,  except  to  vindi- 
cate the  truth  of  history  and  give  honor  to  whom 
honor  is  due.  We  would  just  as  soon  trace  our 
origin  to  the  Scoth  Baptists,  or  the  Sandemanians, 
as  to  any  other  human  source,  if  such  were  the 
case.  Why  should  we  care  ?  The  only  question 
we  ask  is,  What  is  truth?  What  is  from  God? 
We  are  concerned  not  a  farthing  as  to  who  said  a 
thing,  or  who  before  us  has  taught  as  we  teach, 
till  we  get  back  to  Christ  and  his  apostles.  The 
authority  of  Alexander  Campbell  sits  as  lightly 
upon  our  consciences  as  that  of  Fuller,  or  Gill,  or 
Sandeman,  when  we  find  him  contending  against 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST/ 


91 


right  reason,  or  the  word  of  God.  "  Sworn  to  no 
master,  of  no  sect  am  I,"  is  true  of  every  man  who 
clearly  understands  himself,  as  a  Disciple  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Nothing  is  truth  to  him,  till  he  finds  it  in 
the  oracles  of  God,  so  far  as  his  religion  is  con 
cerned.  He  may  respect  and  love  the  great  and 
good  men  who  have  gone  before  him,  but  he  be- 
lieves in  Jesus  only. 

It  is  due  to  the  memory  of  Mr.  Campbell,  that 
his  personal  testimony,  concerning  the  matters 
treated  of  in  this  chapter,  should  be  fairly  and 
fully  stated.  It  so  happens  that  there  is  no  lack 
of  material  for  this  purpose.  In  the  Millennial 
Harbinger  for  1848,  will  be  found  a  series  of  arti- 
cles devoted  to  these  very  questions.  The  first 
number  of  this  series  begins  on  page  279.  I  quote 
the  following  from  page  280  : 

"  The  question  has  often  been  propounded  to  me 
— how  came  you  by  your  present  views  of  the 
Christian  religion  ?  Are  they  original  or  derived  \ 
If  original,  by  what  process  of  reason  ?  If  derived, 
from  what  authority  or  source?  These  are  ques- 
tions of  but  little  consequence  to  any  individual. 
The  capital  question  is,  are  they  well  founded?" 

To  this,  Mr.  C.  presently  adds :  "  There  are  no 
new  discoveries  in  Christianity.  Our  whole  relig- 
ion^ objectively  and  doctrinally  considered,  is 
found  in  a  book.  Whatever  in  Christianity  is 
new,  is  not  true.  Whatever  is  true,  is  contained 
in  the  commonly  received  and  acknowledged  books 


92 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  or  Covenants." 
The  whole  question,  he  urges,  k'is  one  of  interpre- 
tation." It  has  respect  to  what  is  written  in  these 
books.    But  still  the  question  recurs  : 

"  How  were  you  led  to  interpret  the  Scriptures 
differently,  and  to  teach  and  practice  differently 
from  what  you  once  thought,  and  believed  and 
practiced?  Well,  as  these  may  be  useful  to 
others,  I  will  answer  the  question  by  the  narration 
of  a  few  incidents,  anecdotes  and  facts,  some  of 
which,  never  before  published,  may  be  of  use  to 
others,  and  lead  them  to  a  new  mode  of  thinking 
and  acting,  as  well  as  of  enjoying  the  Christian 
religion." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  very  question  which  fur- 
nishes the  thesis  for  Prof.  AVhitsitt's  book,  is  that 
which  Mr.  Campbell  here  sets  himself  to  answer. 
He  begins,  of  course,  with  what  he  regards  as  the 
essential  starting  point  of  his  investigations,  the 
point  of  his  departure  from  the  views  in  which  he  had 
been  trained  by  his  honored  father,  and  the  church 
of  which  he  had  been  a  member  from  his  infancy. 
He  does  not  deny  his  intellectual  indebtedness  to 
any  one,  orthodox  or  heterodox,  Catholic  or  Prot- 
estant. His  task  is  to  give  faithfully  the  lines 
along  which  his  mind,  as  he  devoutly  believed, 
had  been  providentially  led  from  first  to  last. 
This  would  answer  the  question  which  men  were 
asking  him ;  the  very  question,  as  I  have  said, 
which  Mr.  AVhitsitt  attempts  to  answer  in  his  pre- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


98 


tentious  little  book.  Where,  then,  does  he  place 
the  initial  movement  of  this  whole  process  of  study 
and  development,  which  issued  in  the  formation  of 
the  views,  to  the  advocacy  of  which  he  gave  the 
maturest  and  most  fruitful  years  of  his  life  ?  If  a 
man  wished  to  know  the  real  answer  to  Prof. 
Whitsitt's  question,  here  is  the  place  to  obtain  it. 
All  the  essential  facts  are  here  given  in  a  most 
straightforward  and  lucid  way.  There  can  be  no 
excuse  for  ignorance  in  the  matter  at  all.  It  is 
not  said  that  no  impression  had  been  made  upon 
his  mind  by  Greville  Ewing,  or  John  Walker,  or 
any  one  else,  but  as  the  real  point  of  departure, 
as  the  initial  impulse  of  all  that  he  himself  re 
garded  as  most  characteristic  in  his  conception  of 
the  Christian  religion,  he  refers  us  to  certain  words 
which  deeply  impressed  him,  and  set  his  mind  to 
work  in  an  entirely  new  direction.  I  still  quote 
from  the  Harbinger,  as  above,  page  280 : 

"The  first  proof-sheet  that  I  ever  read  was  a 
form  of  my  father's  Declaration"  and  Address 
in  press  in  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  on  my  ar- 
rival there  in  October,  1809.  There  were  in  it  the 
following  sentences:  6 Nothing  ought  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  faith  or  worship  of  the  church,  or 
be  made  a  term  of  communion  amongst  Christians, 
that  is  not  as  old  as  the  New  Testament.  Nor 
ought  anything  to  be  admitted  as  of  divine  obliga- 
tion, in  the  church  constitution  and  management, 
but  what  is  expressly  enjoined  by  the  authority 


94 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  upon  the 
Xew  Testament  church  ;  either  in"  express  terms 

OR  BY  APPROVED  PRECEDENT.'  " 

.  These  words,  be  it  noted,  relate  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  of  Christ,  to  its  principle  of  af- 
filiation and  bond  of  brotherhood.  If  they  mean 
anything — and  the  man  is  queerly  constituted  who 
does  not  perceive  their  far-reaching  import — they 
relate  to  what  is  fundamental  in  the  church  as  a 
divine  institution,  and  are,  therefore,  of  the  high- 
est importance.  These  last  words,  Mr.  Campbell 
says,  "made  a  deep  impression"  on  his  mind. 
The  attempt  of  Prof.  Whitsitt  to  connect  Alexan- 
der Campbell  with  the  preparation  of  this  address 
is  entirely  gratuitous,  not  to  say  impertinent.  It 
is  puerile  if  gravely  held;  as  the  device  of  an  ad- 
vocate, it  is  scarcely  less  than  contemptible.  Mr. 
Campbell  speaks  of  these  words  as  the  words  of 
his  father.  He  expressly  says,  "  They  made  a 
deep  impression  on  my  mind."  You  must  dis- 
credit utterly  his  own  testimony  before  you  can 
believe  that  lie  had  anything  to  do  with  the  put- 
ting of  these  words  into  the  address.  Mr.  C.  says 
there  was  "  ambiguity  about  the  *  approved  prece- 
dent,' but  none  about  4  express  terms.'"  These 
words  became  a  study  to  him.  He  "  reasoned  with 
himself  and  others"  on  the  matters  involved  in 
them.  Like  any  man  who  sees  for  the  first  time 
the  force  of  a  great  and  fruitful  generalization,  his 
whole   intellectual    nature  was  quickened  and 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


95 


aroused.  He  "reasoned  with  himself  and  with 
others/'  This  expression  well  indicates  his  ab- 
sorption with  the  theme,  and  shows  at  the  same 
time  its  causal  relation  to  the  whole  development 
which  followed.  While  these  studies,  these  "rea- 
sonings with  himself  and  others,"  were  going  on, 
he  met  with  Rev.  Mr.  Riddle  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  introduced  the  matter  to  him.  But 
Mr.  Riddle,  admitting  the  words  in  question  to  be 
plausible,  pronounced  them  unsound.  "If  you 
follow  them  out,"  said  he,  "  you  must  become  a 
Baptist."  This  was  well  said.  Bat  there  was 
more  in  these  words  than  mere  Baptistism,  as  distin- 
guished from  Presbyterianism.  And  it  was  this 
excess  of  meaning  beyond  the  baptismal  question 
which  was  the  secret  of  their  absorbing  interest  to 
Mr.  C,  for  it  appears  that  he  had  not  yet  weighed 
their  bearing  on  that  particular  controversy.  His 
father,  who  had  written  the  address,  had  not  sus- 
pected the  conclusion  wrapped  up  in  his  own 
formula.  Like  many  another  man,  he  was  provi- 
dentially "  building  wiser  than  he  knew,"  as  the 
sequel  clearly  proved.  "What,"  said  Mr.  C,  in 
response  to  Mr.  Riddle,  "is  there  no  express  pre- 
cept for,  nor  precedent  of,  infant  baptism  in  the 
Scriptures?"  Doctor  Riddle  said,  "Not  one." 
Mr.  Campbell  says,  "I  was  startled."  "Turning 
to  Mr.  Andrew  Monroe,  the  principal  bookseller  of 
Jefferson  College,  Cannonsburg,  Pa.,  I  said,  '  send 
me,  if  you  please,  forthwith,  all  the  treatises  you 


96 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


have  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.'"  The  treatises 
were  sent.  And  here  began,  unexpectedly,  as  the 
circumstances  show,  the  studies  which  ended  in 
the  immersion  of  the  Campbells,  and  the  forma- 
tion of  the  church  at  Brush  Run,  Pennsylvania,  on 
the  foundation  divinely  ordained  by  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  The  account  of  this  matter  given  in 
Prof.  Whitsitt's  book,  (ch.  viii)  is  a  miserable  per- 
version of  the  facts.  A  careful  manipulation  of 
extracts  from  Dr.  Richardson's  Life  of  Campbell, 
skillfully  interwoven  with  suggestive  inventions 
from  his  own  brain,  imparts  an  appearance  of 
plausibility  to  a  story  which  wrongs  the  Campbells, 
and  leaves  our  author  without  the  slightest  claim 
to  the  character  of  an  impartial  historian.  It  is  a 
conspicuous  example  of  what  is,  alas!  too  common 
— viz:  perversion  of  history  to  serve  the  purpose 
of  a  party.  Fair-minded  Baptists  have  affirmed 
as  much,  and  it  is  greatly  to  their  credit  that  they 
have  done  so.* 

Mr.  Campbell  says  he  never  inquired  for  any- 
thing on  the  Baptist  side.  He  was  impressed  with 
the  idea  that  they  were  an  ignorant  people,  and 
had  no  thought  of  deriving  assistance  from  such  a 
source.  He  had  read  John  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's 
Progress,  but  knew  not  that  he  was  a  Baptist.  It 
is  not  strange  that  Mr.  C.  should  have  had  such 
an  impression  regarding  the  Baptists  of  that  day. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  one  young  man  in  a  hun- 

*See  Appendix. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


97 


dred  of  Presbyterian  raising  had  a  different  view. 
Besides,  the  Baptists  were  not  then  the  educated 
people  they  are  now.  They  had  had  men  of  dis- 
tinction among  themselves,  but  even  their  ablest 
men  had  won  little  recognition  among  the  Pedo- 
Baptist  sects.  All  the  members  of  "the  Washing- 
ton Christian  Association"  were  Presbyterians,  and 
hostile  to  Baptist  views.  Mr.  C.  says  expressly 
that  he  "  was  better  pleased  with  Presby terianisni 
than  anything  else,  and  desired,  if  possible,  to 
maintain  it.''  (Har.  p.  281).  His  study  of  the 
books  sent  him  did  not  impress  him  at  all  favora- 
bly. Indignant  at  their  assumptions  and  falla- 
cious reasonings,"'  he  threw  them  aside  in  disgust, 
and  lied  to  his  Greek  Xew  Testament  with  a  hope 
of  finding  something  more  satisfactory.  But  here 
he  found  no  resting-place  for  the  sole  of  his  foot. 
He  went  to  his  father  for  help.  It  was  a  question 
of  "precept  and  precedent,"  of  course.  It  was 
from  this  point  of  view  his  inquiries  had  begun, 
and  his  investigations  had  undoubtedly  taken 
that  direction  throughout.  His  father  conceded 
the  whole  ground  as  to  the  precept  or  precedent 
for  infant  baptism,  but,  "  strange  to  tell,"  says  the 
son,  "  took  the  ground  that  once  in  the  church, 
and  participants  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  could 
not  '  unchurch  or  paganize  ourselves  ' — and  com- 
mence again  as  would  a  heathen  man  and  a  publi- 
can." (H.  p.  281).  They  went  into  discussion. 
The  father  admitted  that  they  ought  not  to  teach 


98 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


or  practice  infant  baptism  without  divine  author- 
ity, that  they  ought  to  practice  only  the  apostolic 
baptism,  but  insisted  that  they  ought  not  to  un- 
christianize  themselves  after  having  professed  and 
preached  the  Christian  faith,  and  participated  in 
its  most  solemn  ordinances.  This  and  kindred 
questions  were  discussed  for  "  many  months." 
Finally  the  end  came.  Alexander  told  his  father 
— he  says  '-with  great  reluctance" — that  he  dis- 
sented from  all  his  reasonings  upon  the  subject, 
and  that  he  must  be  baptized.  He  was  now  fully 
satisfied,  as  he  expressly  tells  us,  that  he  had 
never  been  baptized,  and  to  have  hesitated,  would 
have  been  to  be  untrue  to  his  deliberate  convic- 
tions. It  was  doubtless  a  great  struggle,  but 
Alexander  Campbell  was  not  the  sort  of  a  man 
that  hesitates  long,  when  Scripture  and  conscience 
demand  a  forward  movement,  at  whatever  cost  of 
cherished  memories  and  affections.  What  his 
father  might  do,  what  other  dear  friends  might  do, 
he  knew  not.  The  decision  made  was  by  him- 
self, and  for*  himself  alone.  The  baptism  accord- 
ingly took  place,  but  "  greatly  to  his  gratifica- 
tion," his  father  and  sister,  his  wife,  and  several 
others  went  with  him.  He  had  stipulated  with 
Elder  Luce,  the  administrator,  that  he  should  be 
baptized  upon  the  New  Testament  confession  of 
Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Perhaps 
Prof.  Whitsitt  would  regard  this  scrupulous  ad- 
herence to  the  scriptural  formula  of  profession  as 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


99 


a  specimen  of  Sandemanian  "  literalism,"  but  he 
does  not  intimate  that  it  was  a  slavish  following 
of  Sandemanian  precedent.  He  says  indeed  that 
it  was  stipulated  that  the  baptism  "  should  be 
performed  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc.,  and 
not  in  the  name,  as  was  then,  and  now  is  usual 
among  the  Regular  Barjtists."  This,  he  tells  us, 
was  "in  due  subjection  to  the  authority  of  Archi- 
bald M  '  Lean."  Does  Prof.  Whitsitt  intend  to  be 
understood  as  taking  position  against  this  render- 
ing of  the  commission  ?  Of  course  he  does  not. 
What  then  can  save  his  statement  from  classifica- 
tion with  the  characteristic  devices  of  all  dema- 
gogues? Verily,  the  wily  and  unscrupulous 
leaders  of  our  partisan  politics  are  not  the  only 
demagogues  in  the  world. 

The  baptism  of  the  Campbells  took  place  on 
the  12th  day  of  June,  1812.  In  his  usual  sneering 
manner,  Mr.  Whitsitt  says  that  "  during  the 
period  between  the  year  1812  and  1820,  Alexander 
relapsed  into  a  condition  of  mere  vegetation." 
Vegetation,  forsooth  !  There  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  this  was  one  of  the  most  important  periods 
of  his  life,  the  period  pre-eminently  in  which  the 
great  germinal  principles  that  shaped  the  thought 
and  work  of  his  whole  life  were  becoming  dis- 
tinctly formed  in  his  mind.  Concerning  this  very 
period,  Mr.  C.  writes — Harbinger  1848  P.  344 — 
uThe  position  of  baptism  itself  to  the  other  insti- 
tutions of  Christ  became  a  new  subject  of  examin- 


100 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


ation,  and  a  very  absorbing  one.  A  change  of 
any  one's  views  in  any  radical  matter  in  all  its 
practical  bearings  and  effects  upon  all  his  views, 
not  only  in  reference  to  that  simple  result,  but 
also  in  reference  to  all  its  connections  with  the 
whole  system  of  which  it  is  a  part,  is  not  to  be 
computed  a  priori,  by  himself  or  any  one  else.*' 
The  change  of  his  views  on  baptism,  according  to 
Mr.  C.  himself,  was  the  beginning  of  a  most  care- 
ful study  of  the  whole  Christian  religion  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  advance  already  made.  <;  I  must 
know  now  two  things  about  everything — its  cause 
and  its  relations.  Hence  my  mind  was  for  a  time 
set  loose  from  all  its  moorings.  It  was  not  a  sim- 
ple change  of  views  on  baptism,  which  happens  a 
thousand  times  without  anything  more,  but  a  new 
commencement.  I  was  placed  on  a  new  eminence 
— a  new  peak  of  the  mountain  of  God,  from  which 
the  whole  landscape  of  Christianty  presented  it- 
self to  my  mind  in  a  new  attitude  and  position. " 
"  Mere  vegetation,''  indeed!  Did  Paul  "relapse 
into  a  condition  of  mere  vegetation"  during  that 
mysterious  sojourn  in  Arabia  after  his  conversion? 
Perhaps  Prof.  Whitsitt  thinks  so ;  and  if  he  were 
writing  a  caricature  of  the  apostle's  life,  instead  of 
Alexander  Campbell's,  it  would  be  exactly  like 
him  to  say  so.  Paul  has  nowhere  given  in  detail 
the  processes  of  elaboration  and  adjustment 
through  which  his  mind  had  struggled  into  the 
full  light  of  the  gospel,  but  that  he  had  such  an 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


101 


experience  of  the  gradual  opening  up  of  the  truth 
to  his  soul  cannot  be  doubted.  A  great  intellect 
like  Paul's  must  have  time  to  take  its  bearings, 
and  shape  the  outline  of  its  activities  in  the  new 
field  of  sacrifice  and  toil,  which  now  lay  before 
him.  Paul  did  not  "vegetate;"  nor  did  Alex- 
ander Campbell.  Neither  of  them  was  that  sort 
of  man. 

Prof.  Whitsitt  speaks  very  slightingly  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  sermon  on  The  Law,  delivered  in  1S1G, 
in  the  very  midst  of  the  period  designated  as  one 
of  "mere  vegetation" — doubtless  because  there  is 
nothing  in  it  (although  he  more  than  insinuates 
the  contrary)  which  tends  to  strengthen  the  thesis 
which  he  has  undertaken  to  prove.  If  he  had 
really  wished  to  follow  Mr.  Campbell  along  the 
lines  of  his  actual  growth  in  divine  knowledge,  he 
would  not  have  passed  over  this  memorable  dis- 
course so  lightly.  The  fact  is,  that,  more  than 
anything  else  in  our  possession,  this  sermon  indi- 
cates the  true  nature  of  the  revolution  which  was 
going  on  in  his  mind.  The  germs  indeed  of  very 
much  of  the  most  characteristic  teaching  of  his 
life  are  contained  in  it.  The  clear,  comprehensive 
and  fruitful  distinction  between  the  old  and  new 
Covenants,  between  Christianity  and  Judaism,  be- 
tween the  law  and  the  gospel,  which  did  so  much 
to  shape  the  whole  movement  of  the  Disciples,  is 
here  fully  propounded  and  convincingly  argued. 
And  so  far  away  is  the  general  tenor  of  the  dis- 


102 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


course  from  the  fixed  grooves  of  Sandemanian  the- 
ology, that  so  distinguished  a  leader  of  the  Scotch 
Baptists  as  Elder  William  Jones  of  London — a 
Sandemanian,  as  Prof.  Whitsitt  would  say,  of  the 
Immersion  observance — boldly  rejected  it  as  down- 
right Antinomianism.  Criticising  an  article  in 
The  Christian  Baptist  of  exactly  the  same  pur- 
port, he  says : 

"Here  is  a  strange  affair  indeed;  Mr.  Campbell, 
who  exhibits  the  Scotch  Baptists  "  (Sandemanians, 
according  to  Prof.  Whitsitt,  of  the  immersion  ob- 
servance) "  of  this  country  as  being  c  fettered  and 
manacled  and  paralyzed  by  the  stays  of  Hyper- 
Calvinism,'  is  himself  found  chiming  in  with  the 
Hyper-Calvinists,  the  only  party  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic  that  has  the  least  hesitation  in  admitting 
the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Decalogue,  and  on 
a  point  too  in  which  the  Scotch  Baptist  churches 
are  firmly  agreed  in  opposing  both.  On  this  point 
you  are  quite  out  of  our  camp,  and  we  find  you  in 
that  of  our  enemies." — Harbinger — 1835.  Page 
540. 

This  extract,  as  I  have  said,  is  part  of  Elder 
Jones'  comment  upon  an  article  to  the  same  effect 
as  the  sermon  on  The  Law  to  which  our  Professor 
refers  in  a  semi-contemptuous  vein.  But  as  a 
matter  of  fact  this  sermon  demonstrates  that  Mr. 
Campbell's  mind  was  not  only  moving  in  direc- 
tions wholly  unsuggested  by  those  teachers  whom 
Prof.  Whitsitt  represents  him  as  slavishly  fol- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


103 


lowing,  but  oftentimes  reaching  conclusions  ut- 
terly opposed  to  their  most  fundamental  ideas. 
This  will  not  be  questioned,  I  believe,  by  any  can- 
did person  acquainted  with  all  the  facts.  That 
my  readers  may  see  clearly  what  fruitful  germs 
are  contained  in  this  sermon,  I  give  the  following 
extracts:  "Now,  is  it  not  most  obvious  that  this 
text  (Gal.  iii :  24)  and  context,  instead  of  counte- 
nancing law-preaching,  condemn  it  \  The  scope 
of  it  is  to  show  that  whatever  use  the  law  served 
as  a  schoolmaster  previous  to  Christ,  it  no  longer 
serves  that  use.  And  now  that  Christ  has  come, 
we  are  no  longer  under  it.''  *  *  *  "Some,  not- 
withstanding the  plainness  of  this  doctrine,  may 
urge  their  own  experience  as  contrary  to  it.  It 
would,  however,  be  as  safe  for  Christians  to  make 
divine  truth  a  test  of  their  experience,  and  not 
their  experience  a  test  of  divine  truth.  Some  in- 
dividuals have  been  awakened  by  the  appearance 
of  the  Aurora  Borealis,  by  an  earthquake,  by  a 
thunder-storm,  by  a  dream,  by  sickness,  etc.  How 
inconsistent  for  one  of  these  to  affirm  from  his  own 
experience  that  others  must  be  awakened  in  the 
same  way !  How  incompatible  with  truth  for 
others  to  preach  such  occurrences  as  preliminary 
to  saving  conversion!"  .  .  .  u  A  fourth  conclu- 
sion which  is  deducible  from  the  above  premises 
is,  that  all  arguments  and  motives,  drawn  from 
the  law,  or  Old  Testament,  to  urge  the  disciples  of 
Christ  to  baptize  their  infants;  to  pay  tithes  to 


104 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


their  teachers ;  to  observe  holy  days  or  religious 
fasts,  as  preparatory  to  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  supper;  to  sanctify  the  seventh  day;  to 
enter  into  national  covenants ;  to  establish  any 
form  of  religion  by  civil  law  ; — and  all  reasons  and 
motives  borrowed  from  the  Jewish  law  to  excite 
the  disciples  of  Christ  to  a  compliance  with,  or 
imitation  of,  Jewish  customs,  are  inconclusive,  re- 
pugnant to  Christianity,  and  fall  ineffectual  to  the 
ground ;  not  being  enjoined  or  countenanced  by 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

This  last  sentence  is  the  key-note  to  the  entire 
sermon.  The  authority  of  Moses  has  been  super- 
seded. Everything  stands  or  falls  accordingly  as 
it  is  supported  or  unsupported  by  Christ's  author- 
ity. Nothing  is  binding  now  because  Moses  com- 
manded it.  Only  the  things  of  Moses  which  have 
been  "  repromulged  "  by  Jesus  Christ  are  binding 
on  his  disciples.  Prof.  Whitsitt  may  not  think 
very  highly  of  the  doctrine  of  this  sermon,  but  he 
can  find  no  vestige  of  Sandemanianism  in  it.  For 
all  that,  however,  it  follows  very  closely,  if  not 
>;  slavishly,"  one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  great  leaders 
— the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  year  1820,  which  is  fixed  by  our  Professor 
as  the  later  limit  of  this  assumed  vegetation 
period,  brings  us  to  the  debate  with  Mr.  Walker, 
the  Presbyterian,  and  to  the  beginning  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  career  as  an  author.  The  M'Calla  de- 
bate and  the  Christian  Baptist  came  in  1823,  and 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


105 


from  that  time  on  his  whole  public  life  was  before 
the  eyes  of  the  world.  Much  that  he  wrote  in  the 
earlier  years  of  his  editorial  activity  must  be 
taken  as  tentative  rather  than  final.  His  mind 
was  in  the  growing  stage  even  yet,  and  the  conclu- 
sions then  reached  often  failed,  no  doubt,  to  com- 
mand the  assent  of  his  judgment  at  a  later  period. 
It  is  always  so  in  great  mental  revolutions.  And 
the  religious  reformer  must  therefore  be  studied  in 
the  light  of  this  inexorable  law  which  shapes  our 
progress  in  every  sort  of  knowledge.  To  its  oper- 
ation there  has  been  thus  far  no  exception  in 
human  history. 


106 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


CHAPTER  V. 

A  MOST  FUNDAMENTAL  DIFFERENCE. 

Compared  with  the  varieties  of  the  Scottish  In- 
dependent, whether  Baptist  or  Pedo-Baptist,  the 
history  of  the  Disciples  exhibits  from  the  com- 
mencement a  most  striking  difference.  From  the 
first  step  taken,  the  Campbells  looked  to  the  union 
of  Christians  as  one  special  object  of  their  labors. 
If  they  rejected  human  creeds,  it  was  beause  they 
were  essentially  schismatic  in  their  tendencies. 
If  they  repudiated  the  jargon  of  scholasticism,  it 
was  that  hindrances  to  Christian  unity  might  be 
gotten  out  of  the  way.  If  they  emphasized  the 
simple  features  of  the  apostolic  gospel,  and  church 
order,  it  was  because  they  were  firmly  persuaded 
that  the  catholicity  of  our  Lord's  prayer  (Jno.  17) 
could  never  be  attained  upon  any  complex  doc- 
trinal basis  of  human  contrivance.  If  they  would 
have  no  term  of  fellowship  not  enjoined  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  either  in  express  precept,  or  by 
good,  sound  precedent,  the  reason  was  still  the 
same.  The  restoration  of  the  New  Testament 
faith  and  polity  was  no  doubt  a  thing  to  be  sought 
on  its  own  account,  but  the  necessity  of  seeking  it 
first  became  clear  to  them,  when  engaged  in  study- 
ing the  conditions  of  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
fellowship.    Abraham  Lincoln  once  said,  in  sub- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


107 


stance:  "My  business  is  to  preserve  the  Union. 
Whatever  I  do  has  reference  to  this  one  thing  es- 
pecially. If  I  set  the  slaves  free,  it  will  be  to  save 
the  Union  ;  if  I  can  save  the  Union  better  without 
setting  them  free,  then  I  shall  not  set  them  free. 
The  one  thing  to  be  done  is  to  save  the  Union." 
It  was  very  much  so  with  the  Campbells.  They 
had  seen  the  evil  of  division.  Sectism  was  to  them 
a  sin  of  no  common  magnitude.  From  this  great 
sin  they  felt  that  our  common  Protestantism 
should  be  saved.  It  was  at  this  point  our  move- 
ment began,  and  this  end  has  never  been  lost  sight 
of  for  a  moment,  in  our  whole  history.  It  is  im- 
possible now  that  we  should  lose  sight  of  it  at  any 
future  period.  We  must  ever  pray  in  the  words 
of  our  Lord;  "that  they  may  all  be  one,  as  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  one,  to  the  end  that  the 
world  may  believe."  We  have  always  empha- 
sized the  importance  of  unity  as  no  other  Protes- 
tant community  has  done.  And  to-day,  when  it  is 
fashionable  to  plead  that  Evangelical  Protestant- 
ism has  all  the  unity  the  Lord  ever  contemplated, 
our  voice  is  still  heard  above  the  din  and  clamor 
of  sects  pleading  in  the  Master's  name  for  a  union 
of  disciples  of  which  the  only  adequate  measure  is 
the  oneness  of  God  and  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ;  a 
union  which  shall  be  outward  and  actual,  so  that 
the  world  may  be  constrained  to  believe  in  God's 
love,  manifest  through  his  Son,  to  our  whole  sin- 
ning and  dying  race.    To  urge  this  plea  for  Chris- 


108 


OKIGIN  OF  THE 


tian  unity,  as  no  other  people  is  urging  it,  is  one 
of  the  reasons  of  our  existence  ;  one  of  the  reasons 
which  shall  justify  our  presence  among  the  active 
forces  of  Christendom,  in  the  day  when  God  shall 
judge  the  world.  Of  this,  we  can  no  more  doubt, 
than  we  can  call  in  question  the  words  of  the  Mas- 
ter upon  which  our  faith  is  built. 

The  whole  Scotch  school  of  Independents,  whether 
headed  by  Glass  and  Sandeman,  or  M'Lean 
and  the  Haldanes,  overlooked  this  great  ques- 
tion almost  entirely.  They  sought  doctrinal  truth, 
as  the  one  paramount  object  of  all  their  investiga- 
tions and  discussions.  I  do  not  say  that  they  lost 
sight  of  everything  else  absolutely,  but  I  do  say 
that  their  chief  distinction  was  doctrinal  and  spec- 
ulative. Of  the  scriptural  basis  of  ecclesiastical 
fellowship  and  co-operation,  they  seem  to  have 
had  no  clear  conception  at  all.  To  differ  doctrin- 
ally  on  some  hair-splitting  abstraction,  was  to  in- 
sure division  and  the  formation  of  a  new  party. 
The  sect-making  tendency,  which  has  been  the 
bane  of  Protestantism  from  the  days  of  Luther  and 
Calvin,  was  pre-eminently  the  bane  of  Scotch  In- 
dependency. They  were  born  separatists,  one  and 
all.  In  the  light  of  eternity,  this  will  be  the  chief 
thing  to  be  said  against  them.  The  Sandemanian 
errors  regarding  faith,  for  which  they  have  had 
many  hard  things  written  about  them  in  our  time, 
will  then  appear  to  be  venial  blunders,  compared 
with  this  more  serious  mistake.    Separationr  with- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


109 


out  a  justifying  necessity* in  the  sight  of  God,  is 
a  great  sin. 

From  the  inception  of  their  work,  the  Campbells 
seem  to  have  caught  the  true  scriptural  idea  of 
ecclesiastical  fellowship.  They  soon  learned  to 
distinguish  broadly  between  the  faith  which  saves 
men,  and  doctrinal  beliefs  which  neither  save  nor 
condemn  them.  Between  the  belief  with  the  heart 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  God's  only  begotten  Son, 
and  all  the  theological  opinions  which  make  up 
our  various  Protestant  orthodoxies,  they  drew  a 
broad,  bold  line,  and  made  it  ever  thereafter  in- 
effaceable. The  faith  that  saves  the  soul,  they 
said,  is  the  faith  which  unites  to  God,  and  which 
should  unite  God's  children  to  one  another.  The 
faith  which  God  accepts,  his  church  should  accept 
also.  If  God  cares  not  for  our  theological  abstrac- 
tions, however  necessary  they  may  seem  to  the 
symmetry  of  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  then  we 
should  not  care  for  them.  It  is  a  sin  to  require 
men  to  agree  with  us  in  matters  wherein  God  does 
not  require  agreement  with  him.  With  this  clear- 
cut,  comprehensive,  divine  deliverance,  the  Camp- 
bells began.  They  saw  many  things,  no  doubt,  as 
in  a  mirror,  very  obscurely,  but  this  they  saw  with 
a  clearness  and  distinctness,  which,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, was  absolutely  marvelous.  No  doubt 
others  had  denounced  human  creeds  before  they 
denounced  them,  and  had  talked  about  the  Bible, 
as  a  sufficient  rule  in  all  matters  of  faith  and  life, 


110 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


before  tliey  began  their  distinctive  work  as  re- 
formers. But  the  Campbells  saw  a  reason  for  the 
repudiation  of  creeds  which  others  had  not  seen. 
They  perceived  clearly  that  when  used  as  bonds 
of  fellowship,  they  rendered  the  unity  of  the 
church  an  absolute  impossibility.  There  is  not  a 
denominational  creed  in  Christendom  that  does 
not  contain  in  it  dogmatic  utterances  which  lie 
outside  the  limits  of  the  common  faith — the  faith 
which  a  man  must  have,  or  it  is  written  against 
him :  "He  that  believe th  not  shall  be  condemned." 
This  common  faith  which  all  Christians  have — 
which  a  man  must  have  before  he  can  become  a 
Christian — was  the  faith-basis  of  the  whole  church 
of  God,  in  the  New  Testament  times.  In  those 
days,  the  one  common  formula  of  Christian  pro- 
fession was  that  which  had  been  divinely  ordained 
— "  I  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God."  Arianism  and  Athanasianism  were  yet  un- 
known. Augustinianism  and  Pelagianism  had 
not  been  heard  of.  Calvinism  and  Arminianism 
lay  concealed  in  the  womb  of  the  far-away  cen- 
turies. Mind,  we  do  not  object  to  the  formulation 
of  individual  beliefs.  And  if  a  company  of  Chris- 
tian believers  should  wish  to  give  expression  to 
their  theological  ideas  for  general  information,  we 
do  not  say  there  would  be  any  harm  in  it.  From 
the  days  of  the  Campbells  the  distinction  between 
such  expressions  of  opinion  and  the  creed-made 
tests  of  ecclesiastical  fellowship  in  use  throughout 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


Ill 


our  modern  Christendom,  lias  been  clearly  and 
distinctly  drawn.  The  publication  of  my  individ- 
ual opinions,  simply  as  my  opinions,  can  harm  no 
one,  but  the  dogmatic  proclamation  of  such  opin- 
ions as  a  basis  of  fellowship  and  church  co-opera- 
tion, is  an  impertinence  in  the  eyes  of  God  and 
all  thoroughly  instructed  Christian  men.  The  dif- 
ference here  is  open  and  palpable,  and  any  pie- 
tended  failure  to  see  it  is  without  excuse.  A  the- 
ological development,  more  or  less  elaborate,  from 
the  great  germinal  ideas  of  the  New  Testament 
was  to  be  expected — was,  indeed,  according  to  the 
fixed  laws  of  human  thought,  inevitable.  It  is  not 
against  theology,  as  such,  that  our  movement  is  a 
protest.  Theology  in  itself  is  well  enough.  Of 
course,  where  there  are  contradictions  in  theology 
there  must  be  error,  as  well  as  truth.  But  all  the- 
ology is  not  error.  Our  point  is  this  :  The  unity 
of  believers  in  one  spiritual  organism,  or  fellow- 
ship was,  beyond  doubt  or  denial,  the  archetypal 
conception  of  the  church  in  the  mind  of  the  Re- 
deemer. No  man  uncommitted  to  the  advocacy  of 
a  sect,  it  is  perfectly  safe  to  say,  can  object  to  this 
statement. 

But  is  this  divine  ideal  of  the  dear  Lord  a  prac- 
tical one  ?  Or  is  it  purely  visionary,  never  to  be 
realized  in  the  church's  history  ?  Everything  de- 
pends on  the  answer  to  this  question.  Mind,  I  do 
not  ask  whether,  under  the  ordinary  laws  of 
human  thought  and  association,  it  has  been  a 


112 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


practical  ideal  in  the  times  which  are  gone,  but  is 
it  an  ideal  that  we  may  expect  to  see  historically 
realized  under  God's  gracious  administration,  at 
any  time  this  side  the  jugdment  day  ?  Oar  move- 
ment implies  the  possibility,  under  God,  of  a 
united  cnurch.  Na}%  more ;  it  implies  the  hope, 
the  confident  persuasion,  grounded  in  Scripture, 
that  the  prayer  of  the  Lord  Jesus  will  be  realized 
before  the  church's  mission  is  accomplished;  be- 
fore the  world  shall  have  been  converted  to  Christ. 
The  Papacy  maintains,  after  a  sort,  an  outward 
unity  which  the  whole  world  recognizes.  But  the 
Papacy  is  a  spiritual  despotism.  The  individual 
is  lost  in  the  collective  organization.  The  Hier- 
archy controls  everything.  Free,  honest  investi- 
gation for  truth's  sake,  for  salvation's  sake  even, 
is  not  to  be  thought  of.  The  church — that  is,  the 
priesthood — does  all  the  thinking  which  is  needed. 
The  individual,  even  though  he  be  a  priest,  is 
mentally  a  serf.  But  Protestantism  affirms  man's 
spiritual  birthright,  in  Christ.  It  sets  before  us 
an  open  Bible,  and  bids  us  seek  truth  for  our- 
selves. This  is  its  crown  of  glory  for  all  the  ages. 
But  is  division  the  price  of  this  freedom  ?  Is  our 
modern  denominationalism  the  best  that  is  possi- 
ble on  the  Protestant  principle  of  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment?  If  such  be  the  case,  I  do  not  say 
we  are  purchasing  our  spiritual  enfranchisement 
at  too  great  a  cost — for  what  equivalent  is  there * 
for  the  soul's  freedom — but  this  I  say,  I  do  not  be. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


113 


lieve  that  such  is  the  fact  in  the  case.  It  is  im- 
possible that  such  can  be  the  case.  If  Protestant- 
ism, in  its  fundamental  idea,  be  of  God,  then  it 
does  not  make  our  Lord's  intercessory  prayer  an 
impossibility.  But  where  then  is  the  seat  of  the 
trouble,  whose  existence  it  were  madness  to  deny  ? 
I  answer :  In  the  mistake  made  by  the  sixteenth 
century  reformers  touching  the  law  of  affiliation, 
or  bond  of  fellowship,  in  the  church  of  God.  The 
New  Testament  faith-basis  has  been  rejected,  and 
in  its  place  has  been  substituted,  everywhere,  a 
body  more  or  less  complete,  of  theological  opinion. 
Every  Protestant  denomination  on  earth  is  an  ex- 
ample of  such  rejection  and  substitution.  The 
theological  articles  of  faith — so  called — differenti- 
ate the  parties,  and  measure  the  extent  of  theolog- 
ical divergence  between  them.  But  is  there  not,  it 
may  be  asked,  beneath  all  this  diversity  of  the 
evangelical  denominations,  a  deeper  and  most  real 
unity?  the  unity  for  which  the  Lord  prayed? 
To  the  first  question  we  answer,  yes.  To  the  sec- 
ond question,  no.  There  is  a  real,  vital  union, 
certainly,  between  all  Christians,  but  any  union 
which  is  not  actual,  historical,  and  therefore  out- 
ward, is  not  an  adequate  fulfillment  of  the  Lord's 
prayer.  Remember,  Jesus  says,  "  I  pray  that  they 
may  all  be  one,  as  we  are  one,  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me."  Now,  sect-strife, 
more  than  anything  else,  hinders  the  world's  con- 
version to  Christ.    It  is  so  here  at  home.    It  is 

8 


114 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


doubly  so  in  heathen  lands  abroad.  This  ques- 
tion is  coming  home  to  us  more  and  more.  We 
must  face  it,  whether  we  wish  to  do  so  or  not. 
What  our  missionaries  among  the  heathen  are 
learning  to-day,  the  Lord  Jesus  saw,  through  the 
vistas  of  twenty  centuries,  from  the  very  begin- 
ning. No ;  the  Lord's  people  are  not  one  in  the 
sense  of  his  prayer.  This  is  absolutely  certain. 
They  will  never  be  one  in  that  sense  until  "  the 
rock*'  upon  which  he  built  his  church  is  restored 
to  its  proper  place.  But  this  is  objected  to.  Our 
Lord's  idea,  we  are  told,  was  that  of  unity  in  di- 
versity. Now  it  must  be  admitted  that  "  unity  in 
diversity  "  is  a  happy  phrase,  and  that  it  may  be 
used  to  express  a  great  truth.  Only  let  us  beware 
that  we  do  not  employ  it  to  conceal  a  great  false- 
hood !  It  must  be  plain  to  every  man  of  sense, 
that  no  unity  of  Christians  other  than  one  which 
is  consistent  with  a  certain  sort  of  diversity  is  at 
all  possible.  In  theological  tenets,  Christian  men 
need  never  expect  absolute  agreement.  It  was  not 
so  in  the  beginning,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  it  never 
will  be.  But  in  faith,  saving  faith,  by  universal 
consent,  Christians  are,  and  must  ever  be,  one. 
Nothing  is  plainer,  therefore,  than  the  fact,  that  so 
far  as  faith  is  concerned,  here  is  a  sufficient  basis 
for  a  unity  both  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical.  It 
will  be  sufficient,  if  we  require,  as  a  condition  of 
fellowship  with  us,  precisely  the  same  faith  which 
God  requires  as  a  condition  of  fellowship  with 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


115 


him.  Nay,  more ;  is  it  not  at  our  peril  that  we 
require  anything  else?  I  judge  no  one;  but  cer- 
tainly there  is  a  day  of  reckoning  to  come.  Judg- 
ment is  to  begin  at  the  house  of  God. 

Now,  of  these  things,  the  Campbells  seem  to 
have  had  an  unusually  clear  understanding  from 
a  very  early  period  in  their  work.  Something  like 
this  discloses  itself  in  the  first  tentative  begin- 
nings in  the  "  Christian  Association."  It  grows 
clearer  at  each  successive  step.  Along  this  line 
God  was  leading  them.  Slowly  the  wide  field  is 
opened  up  before  them,  and  the  progress,  upon  the 
whole,  is  steady  in  the  direction  of  the  first  for- 
ward outlook.  The  final  expression  of  this  great 
feature  in  our  history  is,  perhaps,  nowhere  better 
put  than  by  Mr.  Campbell  in  his  debate  with  Dr. 
~N.  L.  Rice,  at  Lexington,  Ky.  : 

"  So  is  it  in  our  most  holy  faith.  There  are  but 
two  grand  principles  in  Christianity,  two  laws  re- 
vealed and  developed,  whose  combination  produces 
similar  harmony,  beauty,  and  loveliness  in  the 
world  of  mind  as  (the  centripetal  and  centrifugal 
forces)  in  the  world  of  matter.  I  must  at  once  de- 
clare the  simplicity  of  this  divine  constitution  of 
remedial  mercy.  It  has  but  three  grand  ideas 
peculiar  to  itself ;  and  these  all  concern  the  King. 
I  am  sorry  that  this  mysterious  and  sublime  sim- 
plicity does  not  appear  to  those  who  set  about 
making  constitutions  for  Christ's  kingdom.  This 
confession  of  omnipotent  moral  power,  because  the 


116  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

offspring  of  infinite  wisdom  and  benevolence,  must 
be  learned  from  one  passage,  Matt.  16,  "Who  do 
men  say  that  I  am  ?"  We  must  advance  one  step 
further — who  say  you  that  I  am  ?  Peter  in  one 
momentous  period  expressed  the  whole  affair — 
'  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living 
God.'  The  two  ideas  expressed,  concern  the  per- 
son of  the  Messiah  and  his  office.  The  one  im- 
plied concerns  his  character;  for  it  was  through 
his  character,  as  developed,  that  Peter  recognized 
his  person  and  his  Messiahship.  Now,  let  us  take 
the  shoes  from  off  our  feet,  for  we  stand  on  holy 
ground.  '  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas  ; 
flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
my  Father,  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  unto 
thee,  thou  art  Peter  (a  stone)  and  on  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
(hades)  shall  not  prevail  against  it.'  It  will  stand 
forever.  '  I  will  give  unto  thee  (thyself  alone, 
Peter,)  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (my 
church),  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth, 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.' 
Here,  then,  is  the  whole  revelation  of  the  mystery 
of  the  Christian  constitution.  The  full  confession 
of  the  Christian  faith.  All  that  is  peculiar  to 
Christianity,  is  found  in  these  words ;  not  merely 
in  embryo,  but  in  a  clearly  expressed  outline.  A 
clear  perception,  and  a  cordial  belief  of  these  two 
facts  will  make  any  man  a  Christian. 


DTSCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


117 


He  may  carry  them  out  in  their  vast  dimensions 
and  glorious  developments,  to  all  eternity.  He 
may  ponder  upon  them  until  his  spirit  is  trans- 
formed into  the  image  of  God ;  until  he  shines  in 
more  than  angelic  brightness,  in  all  the  purity 
and  "beauty  of  heavenly  love.  Man  glorified  in 
heaven,  gifted  with  immortality,  and  rapt  in  the 
ecstacies  of  eternal  blessedness,  is  but  the  mere 
result  of  a  proper  apprehension  of,  and  conformity 
to,  this  confession.  I  am  always  overwhelmed 
with  astonishment  in  observing  how  this  document 
has  been  disparaged  and  set  at  naught  by  our 
builders  of  churches.  Yet  Jesus  calls  it  the  rod'. 
It  is  in  a  figure  of  a  church  or  a  temple,  the  foun- 
dation, the  rock.  When  all  societies  build  on  this 
one  foundation,  and  on  it  only,  then  there  shall  be 
unity  of  faith,  of  affection,  and  of  co-operation ; 
but  never  till  then.  Every  other  foundation  is 
sand.  Hence  they  have  all  wasted  away.  Innum- 
erable parties  have  perished  from  the  earth ;  and 
so  will  all  the  present,  built  on  any  other  founda- 
tion than  this  rock.  *  *  *  Their  doom  is 
written,  '  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou 
return.'  "    (C.  and  R.  Debate,  page  422). 

From  this  masterly  statement  I  would  gladly 
quote  more ;  but  space  forbids.  Whoever  con- 
fesses Jesus,  as  above  described,  receiving  him  in 
his  heart  as  Messiah  and  Savior,  and  then,  be- 
cause he  has  so  received  him,  is  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  becomes 


118 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


thereby  a  member  of  the  church  of  God,  and  is  so 
owned  and  approved  in  heaven ;  not  only  so,  is 
thereby  entitled  to  be  so  owned  and  approved  in 
every  congregation  or  local  church  of  God  on 
earth.  This  is  the  beginning.  A  life  so  begun, 
and  continued  in  faithful  conformity  to  Christ's 
life,  till  the  end  comes,  is  sure  to  be  approved  of 
God  in  the  judgment.  This  faith  and  life  consti- 
tute the  Xew  Testament  law  of  affiliation,  the  one 
divine  bond  of  Christian  and  church  fellowship, 
ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  till  he  comes  to  judge 
the  world.  Of  some  things  a  man  may  not  feel 
sure.  Of  this  we  are  as  sure  as  we  are  that  the 
only  name  in  which  men  can  be  saved  is  the  name 
of  Jesus.  Every  deviation  from  this  law  of  divine 
brotherhood  and  co-operation  is  outside  the  divine 
charter,  and  is  doomed  to  failure  in  the  future,  as 
it  has  failed  in  the  past.  This  the  Campbells 
clearly  saw,  and  this  the  Sandemanians  and 
Scotch  Baptists,  like  all  other  parties,  utterly 
failed  to  see.  If  there  were  nothing  else  to  be 
said  to  their  honor,  there  is  enough  in  this  single 
restoration  of  the  primitive  ideal  to  insure  to  them 
the  reverent  regard  of  true  men  in  all  the  ages  to 
come. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


119 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CERTAIN  MATTERS  OF  DETAIL. 

j?rof.  Whitsitt,  without  a  word  of  authority  from 
any  source,  seeks  to  make  the  impression  that  the 
course  of  Thomas  Campbell  in  America,  was  really 
inspired  by  Alexander,  while  he  was  yet  in  Glas- 
gow, Scotland.  I  call  attention  to  the  following 
extract,  as  a  specimen  : 

"From  the  letter  of  protest  that  was  addressed 
by  Mr.  Camj)bell  to  that  body,  (the  Associate 
Synod  of  North  America),  it  may  be  gathered  that 
the  objections  urged  against  him  related  to  the 
usual  Sandemanian  scruples  concerning  the  im- 
propriety of  any  human  standards  of  belief,  and 
to  his  advocacy  of  the  customary  Sandemanian 
position  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  admissi- 
ble standard,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  kinds  of 
creeds  and  confessions  of  faith.  Here  was  the 
earliest,  if  not  the  most  brilliant,  conquest  which 
Alexander  was  enabled  to  make  on  behalf  of  San- 
demanianism."    Page  65,  6. 

This  intimation  of  an  influence  exerted,  first 
upon  Alexander  Campbell  by  Greville  Ewing,  and 
then  upon  Thomas  Campbell  through  his  son,  need 
not  be  noticed  here,  further  than  to  say  that  there 
is  no  shadow  of  foundation  for  it  anywhere  out- 
side Prof.  W.'s  own  imagination.    Not  only  is  it 


120 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


without  authority,  the  facts  are  against  it.  The 
younger  Campbell  was  in  Glasgow,  busily  pursu- 
ing his  studies  in  the  University,  being  at  the 
same  time  charged  with  the  care  of  his  father's 
family.  How  should  he  find  time  to  communicate 
a  programme  of  reformation  to  his  father  in  Amer- 
ica \  It  is  an  idle  conceit,  unworthy  of  a  Professor 
in  a  Baptist  Theological  School,  and  incredible  to 
any  body  but  mere  partisans.  But  Thomas  Camp- 
bell, it  seems,  was  following  in  the  track  of  the 
Sandemanians,  however  we  may  account  for  it. 
Prof.  AYhitsittt  is  determined  to  have  it  so.  This 
is  not  true.  Were  the  Sandemanians  the  only 
people,  who  about  that  time,  began  to  speak 
words  of  protest  against  the  despotism  of  creeds  ? 
By  no  means.  The  Baptists  in  England,  not  less 
than  their  brethren  in  Scotland,  were  no  advocates 
of  creeds.  To  this  day,  they  refuse  to  be  bound 
by  them;  in  spite,,  too,  of  the  great  influence  of 
their  greatest  preacher.  The  roof  under  which 
English  Baptists  assemble  for  co-operative  work 
must  be  broad  enough  to  shelter  the  different 
schools  of  doctrine  into  which  the  Baptists  of  the 
United  Kingdom  are  divided.  It  has  always  been 
so,  as  we  shall  see  further  along.  But  will  our 
Professor  himself  contend  for  a  any  standards  of 
belief"  other  than  the  Scriptures  ?  Have  Ameri- 
can Baptists  any  such  ''standard!"  Standard  is 
our  Professor's  own  word.  To  have  scruples  about 
the  use  of  "human  standards"  of  belief,  he  regards 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


121 


as  proof  of  Sandemanian  heresy  !  If  this  is  so,  let 
our  Baptist  brethren  cease  prating  about  their 
fidelity  to  the  Bible  as  "  the  only  standard." 

But  Thomas  Campbell's  position,  as  against 
creeds,  was  no  mere  vague  war-cry,  or  "glittering 
generality/'  He  clearly  defined  what  he  meant 
by  taking  the  Bible  as  the  only  "  standard." 
Sandemanians  and  Scotch  Baptists  inveighed 
against  creeds,  but  themselves  followed  the  creed- 
principle.  Prof.  Whitsitt  knows  full  well  that  a 
creed  does  not  need  to  be  written.  These  parties 
made  their  unwritten  articles  a  test  of  church  fel- 
lowship, no  less  exactingiy  than  other  sects  their 
written  creeds.  This  can  not  be  denied.  It  is  this 
which  explains  their  separatists  fecundity.  But 
Thomas  Campbell  began  by  guarding  against  sep- 
aratism, as  far  as  anything  can  be  guarded  against 
in  this  imperfect  human  world.  Nothing  ought  to 
be  made  a  test  of  fellowship,  said  he,  which  is 
not  enjoined  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  either  in 
express  precept  or  by  good  and  valid  precedent. 
This  is  what  taking  the  Bible  as  the  only  "  stan- 
dard" meant  to  him.  This  is  not  Sandemanian- 
ism,  but  apostolical  Christianity.  It  came  not 
from  Greville  Ewing  or  the  Scotch  Baptists,  but 
from  the  New  Testament.  The  first  attempt  to 
build  on  this  foundation,  thus  clearly  outlined, 
since  the  days  of  the  early  church,  was  made  in 
this  new  world  by  Thomas  and  Alexander  Camp- 
bell.   Let  him  that  denies,  show  his  authority. 


122 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


The  Professor  several  times  intimates  that  the 
Sandemanians  (including  of  course  the  Scotch 
Baptists)  denied  any  divine  influence,  outside  the 
gospel  testimony,  in  the  production  of  faith.  This 
is  not  true.  It  is  a  stale  charge  and  ought  not  to 
be  repeated  by  any  writer  who  desires  the  respect 
of  truth-loving  men. . 

Touching  this  question,  Robert  Sandeman  him- 
self shall  speak  first.  He  is  quoted  as  follows,  by 
A.  Campbell,  in  the  Harbinger  for  1835,  p.  356. 

"  Two  men  may  be  employed  with  equal  dili- 
gence in  studying  the  Scriptures,  and  with  equal 
seriousness  in  praying  for  divine  assistance ;  the 
one  may  come  to  know,  the  truth,  and  the  other 
may  grope  in  the  dark  all  his  life-time."  Now  if 
we  admit  this,  why  is  it  so  ?  Here  is  the  answer : 
"  Faith  comes  not  by  any  human  endeavor,  or  the 
use  of  any  means,  even  under  the  greatest  advan- 
tages that  men  can  enjoy:  but  of  that  same  sov- 
ereign good  'pleasure  which  provided  the  grand 
thing  to  be  believed?''  Vol.  2,  London,  1768,  p. 
191. 

This  is  plain  enough.  Indeed  it  could  not  be 
otherwise,  for  Sandeman  was  a  Calvinist,  and  Cal- 
vinism means  the  production  of  faith  by  the  di- 
vine sovereignty. 

Let  Archibald  M'Lean  speak  for  the  Scotch 
Baptists  : 

"This  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Jesus,  though  a  duty  incumbent  on  all  who 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


123 


hear  the  gospel,  is  nevertheless  the  special  gift 
of  God,  being  the  effect  of  divine  teaching  by 
means  of  the  word,  and  peculiar  to  the  elect." 
Commission  p.  72. 

"  The  power  of  Jesus  in  giving  sight  to  the  blind 
man,  made  him  instantly  sensible  that  he  saw, 
and  left  no  room  for  reasoning  on  the  subject  ; 
even  so,  when  the  import  and  evidence  of  the  truth 

SHIXE3    IXTO    THE    HEART  BY  THE  ENLIGHTENING 

spiPwIT,  it  has  at  once  the  double  effect  of  produc- 
ing belief,  and  the  consciousness  of  it."  Ibid.  p. 
82. 

"  The  testimony  of  conscience  will  be  more  or 
.less  explicit,  according  to  the  degree  of  faith 
which  is  the  subject  of  it;  even  as  faith  itself  is 
weak  or  strong  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  light 
and  evidence  with  which  the  gospel  by  the  Spirit 
shines  into  the  mind,  which  is  the  foundation  of 
both.    Ibid.  p.  85. 

Andrew  Fuller  himself  testifies  that  these  men 
believed  in  divine  influence  in  order  to  faith.  In 
his  review  of  M '  Lean,  (Appendix  to  his  Gospel 
Worthy,  etc.  p.  208)  he  writes  as  follows : 

"That  there  is  a  divine  influence  on  the  soul, 
which  is  necessary  to  spiritual  perception  and  be- 
lief, as  being  the  cause  of  them,  those  with  whom 
I  am  now  reasoning  will  admit.  The  only  ques- 
tion is,  in  ichat  order  these  things  are  caused  ? 
Whether  the  Holy  Spirit  causes  the  mind,  while 
carnal,  to  discern  and  believe  spiritual  things,  and 


124 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


thereby  renders  it  spiritual ;  (the  position  of  San- 
deman  and  M'Lean);  or  whether  he  imparts  a 
holy  susceptibility,  and  relish  for  the  truth,  in 
consequence  of  which  we  discern  its  glory,  and 
embrace  it."  "The  latter,"  continues  Fuller  ''ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  the  truth." 

It  is  hard  to  have  patience  with  those  Baptist 
scribes,  who  not  only  misrepresent  Sandeman, 
M  '  Lean  and  all  the  Scotch  Baptists,  but  who  are 
so  ignorant  of  the  writings  of  their  own  Fuller,  as 
not  to  know  that  he  concedes  the  truth  which  they 
are  making  bold  to  deny.  Sandeman,  M'Lean 
and  Fuller  were  all  Calvinists,  and  agreed  that 
faith  is  possible  only  to  the  elect.  They  agreed 
further,  as  every  man  knows  who  knows  anything 
about  it,  that  saving  or  justifying  faith  is  the  be- 
lief of  the  gospel;  or,  to  put  it  in  Fuller's  own 
words,  "  the  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what  God 
hath  said."  They  agreed  also  that  this  belief  or 
persuasion  of  the  truth  implies  a  spiritual  percep- 
tion of  its  relations  to  the  soul's  needs,  and  an  ac- 
ceptance of  it,  as  free  and  full  and  adequate  for 
the  soul's  salvation.  They  differed,  as  Fuller  ex- 
pressly says,  about  the  order  in  which  faith  and 
regeneration  are  caused.  Fuller  thought  faith 
was  the  effect  of  prior  regeneration,  and  Sande- 
man, M '  Lean  and  all  that  school,  held  that  regen- 
eration is  the  effect  of  faith.  This  was  the  gist  of 
the  whole  controversy.  To  pretend  to  any  thing 
else,  is  either  to  confess  ignorance  of  the  facts,  or 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHMST. 


125 


to  disregard  tliem  entirely.  When  Sandeman  spoke 
of  faith  in  connection  with  justification  as  "  the  bare 
belief  of  the  bare  truth,"  he  only#  affirmed  that 
justification  is  grounded,  not  upon  a  holiness  of 
heart  implied  in  believing,  but  upon  the  believing 
itself,  as  separated  from  that  holiness  which  is  the 
immediate  effect  of  it.  The  same  position  has  al- 
ready been  noticed  in  M' Lean's  treatise  on  the 
Commission.  Neither  Sandeman  or  M'Lean 
thought  of  faith  otherwise  than  as  the  "  special 
gift  of  God,"  and  dependent  upon  an  exercise  of 
divine  sovereignty. 

The  general  want  of  fairness  which  pervades 
Mr.  Whitsitt's  book  may  be  indicated  by  a  sin- 
gle quotation : 

uIn  the  year  1816,  he  was  able  to  excite  a  small 
controversy  by  a  discourse  on  "  The  Law,"  before 
the  Redstone  Association,  where,  in  keeping  with 
his  Sandemanian  principles,  he  thought  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  was  sufficient  to  produce 
"  the  bare  belief  of  the  bare  truth,"  and  therefore 
maintained  that  it  was  unnecessary  and  reprehen- 
sible to  persuade  men  by  the  terrors  of  the  Lord." 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  phrase  '  bare  belief 
of  the  bare  truth,'  is  not  in  the  sermon  on  "The 
Law"  referred  to.  Nor  is  anything  said  about  faith, 
which  implies  such  a  conception  of  it.  Besides, 
this  sermon  shows  that  Mr.  Campbell's  view  of 
divine  influence  was  then  what  is  generally  called 


126 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


the  orthodox  view.  A  single  quotation  will  prove 
this : 

"  The  Christian  dispensation  is  called  '  the  min- 
istration of  the  Spirit,'  and  accordingly  every 
thing  in  the  salvation  of  the  church  is  accom- 
plished by  the  immediate  energy  of  the  Spirit." 
"  He  was  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  of  right- 
eousness, and  judgment;  Not  by  applying  the  law 
of  Moses,  but  the  facts  concerning  Christ,  to  the 
consciences  of  the  people."  *  *  *  "  The  Spirit 
accompanying  the  words  which  the  apostles 
preached,"  (most  orthodox  phrase,)  "  would  con- 
vince the  world  of  sin,  etc.,  *  *  *  so  that 
Christ,  and  not  the  law,  was  the  Alpha  and 
Omega  of  their  sermons  ;  and  this  the  Spirit  made 
effectual  to  the  salvation  of  thousands." 

The  intimation  that  Mr.  C,  in  this,  discourse, 
regarded  the  preaching  of  "  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord"  as  a  reprehensible  procedure,  is  also  with- 
out a  particle  of  foundation.  The  "  terrors  of  the 
Lord"  are  far  more  clearly  exhibited  in  the  gos- 
pel, than  they  were  under  the  law  of  Moses.  And 
it  is  the  preaching  of  "  the  law,"  instead  of  the 
gospel,  as  a  means  of  conversion,  that  is  specially 
reprobated  in  this  sermon.  How  a  Baptist  editor 
— I  do  not  now  remember  of  what  paper — could 
speak  of  the  Professor's  book  as  without  a  blun- 
der in  historical  statement,  must  seem  passing 
strange  to  all  who  have  cared  to  acquaint  them- 
selves with  the  real  history. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


127 


On  page  76,  Mr.  W.  quotes  Dr.  Richardson  as 
saying  that  "  before  the  family  departed  from 
Rich  Hill,  he  had  been  much  pleased  with  the 
works  of  Archibald  M '  Lean,  especially  his  work 
on  '  the  commission '  of  which  he  was  wont  ever 
after  to  speak  in  the  highest  terms."  "  This  inci- 
dent," he  says,  "  is  important  to  the  student  of  his 
life  and  changes."  But,  if  "  this  incident "  turns 
out  to  be  spurious,  then  a  link  in  the  Professor's 
fantastic  chain  of  historical  caricature  is  lost  for- 
ever. What  Prof.  Richardson  really  says,  is  this  : 
"He  seems,  in  addition,  about  this  time  to  have 
read,  and  to  have  been  much  pleased  with  the 
works  of  Archibald  M  '  Lean,  especially  his  work 
on  the  commission,  &c,  &c."  Dr.  R.  says  he 
seems  to  have  read.  This,  of  course,  is  an  expres- 
sion of  uncertainty  ;  but  it  suits  Mr.  W's.  whim 
to  speak  of  it  as  absolute  history.  Now,  there  is 
the  very  best  authority  for  saying  that  Dr.  Rich- 
ardson was,  in  this  instance,  mistaken.  In  a  let- 
ter to  Elder  W.  Jones,  Scotch  Baptist,  of  London, 
Mr.  Campbell  himself  speaks  of  his  first  acquaint- 
ance with  M '  Lean's  writings  as  follows  : 

"  I  may,  therefore,  indirectly  be  indebted  to 
Archibald  M '  Lean,  for  example,  much  more  than 
I  am  aware.  *A  few  years  after  my  immersion,  I 
read  one  volume  of  his  tracts,  and  I  do  not  know 
that  I  have  ever  read  but  his  Review  of  Wardlaw's 
Lectures,  his  Reply  to  Fuller,  a  Defense  of  Be- 
liever's Baptism,  The  Substance  of  two  Discourses 


128 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


preached  on  Faith,  at  Kingston  upon-Hull,  and  a 
Treatise  on  the  Commission.  Sometime  after  my 
separation  from  the  Presbyterian  connection  and 
my  immersion  into  the  ancient  faith,  a  Mr.  Jno. 
Boyle,  of  Ireland,  with  whom  I  formed  a  slight  ac- 
quaintance in  Scotland,  once  an  Episcopal  parson, 
but  then  converted  by  Jno.  Walker,  of  Dublin,  to 
Separatism,  made  me  a  visit,  and  presented  to  me 
a  volume  of  the  above  tracts,  and  thus  introduced 
me  to  a  knowledge  of  the  name  of  Jf'  Lean." 
(M.  H.  1835.  P.  304). 

From  this,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that,  at  the  time 
of  writing  this  letter  to  Eld.  Jones,  Mr.  Campbell 
had  no  recollection  of  having  read  any  thing  from 
M '  Lean  at  an  earlier  date  than  the  one  here  men- 
tioned. Dr.  Richardson  was  therefore  mistaken 
in  his  hypothetical  conclusion  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Whitsitt;  and  the  significant  "incident,"  of  which 
the  latter  makes  so  much,  vanishes  from  history. 

The  following  characteristic  paragraph  may  ex- 
cite a  smile,  or  a  frown,  according  to  the  momen- 
tary mood  in  which  the  reader  shall  chance  to  find 
himself : 

"In  case  the  representations  made  by  Prof. 
Richardson  are  complete,  the  revolution  which 
took  place  in  Alexander's  mind,  by  which  he  be- 
came a  subject  of  Sandeman  in  the  matter  of  faith, 
began  in  the  month  of  October,  1811  (Vol.  1.  P. 
113),  and  was  completed  in  the  month  of  March, 
1812  (Vol.  1,  P.  422).    In  connection  with  it,  he 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


129 


carried  forward  a  correspondence  with  his  father, 
perhaps  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  showing  him 
deference.  The  harmless  old  gentleman  was  inca- 
pable of  rendering  him  any  assistance  in  his  en- 
terprises, but  it  was  in  his  power  to  offer  a  deal  of 
resistance  in  case  he  was  not  duly  coddled  and 
conciliated;  As  on  every  other  occasion,  Thomas 
Campbell  played  the  role  of  a  convenient  echo. 
It  is  surprising  to  witness  the  readiness  with 
which  he  could  repeat  at  first  blush  such  Sande- 
manian  watch-words  as  'the  bare  belief  of  the 
naked  truth,'  and  affirm,  against  the  convictions 
of  a  life-time,  that  this  involuntary,  unavoidable 
faith  was  sufficient  to  procure  salvation."  (Page 
88). 

The  estimate  here  offered  of  the  character  and 
intellectual  qualifications  of  the  elder  Campbell 
need  cause  no  surprise  to  any  one.  It  is  not  the 
judgment  of  a  student  of  the  facts,  sincerely  ex- 
pressed, but  the  careless  deliverance  of  an  un- 
friendly critic,  utterly  misled  by  his  sectarian  prej- 
udices. In  the  quotations  made  from  Thomas 
Campbell  by  Dr.  Richardson,  to  which  Prof.  W. 
has  here  referred  us,  he  expresses  very  definitely 
his  conception  of  faith  in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  full  and  firm  persuasion,  then,  or  hearty 

belief  of  the  Divine  testimony  concerning  Jesus, 

comprehensively  considered  as  above  defined,  is 

that  faith,  in  its  proper  and  primary  acceptation, 

to  which  the  promises  and  privileges  of  salvation 
9 


130 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


are  annexed.  See  Peter's  confession  and  the  rec- 
ognitions of  John  in  his  first  epistle.  "  Thou  art 
the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  Living  God."  *  *  * 
'  AVhosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
born  of  God ; '  '  Who  is  he  that  overcome th  the 
world,  but  he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God  I ' 

We  are  content  to  stand  by  this  definition  of 
faith  to-day,  however  men  may  choose  to  speak  of 
it  as  Sandemanianism,  or  to  scoff  at  it  as  heresy. 
It  would  have  been  perfectly  satisfactory,  as  a 
definition,  to  Andrew  Fuller,  though  it  may  not 
satisfy  such  modern  Baptists  as  are  more  in  sym- 
pathy with  Methodists  and  "  Salvationists  "  than 
with  their  own  greatest  denominational  leader. 
The  expression,  "  bare  belief  of  the  naked  truth," 
which  Prof.  W.  quotes,  is  put  by  Thomas  Camp- 
bell into  the  mouth  of  an  objector,  and  not  given 
as  his  own  conception  of  the  subject.  His  state- 
ment of  his  own  position,  I  have  given  above,  in 
his  own  words.  As  to  the  question  whether  faith 
is  voluntary,  or  involuntary,  little  need  be  said 
here.  It  is  manifestly  one  or  the  other,  according 
to  the  point  of  view  from  which  the  question  is 
put ;  and  that  without  regard  to  any  particular 
theological  system.  A  man  can  not  believe  at 
will,  as  everyone  knows.  And  yet  a  man's  beliefs 
are  not  independent  of  his  will.  A  man,  let  us 
say,  wants  to  know  truth,  wills  to  know  it,  and 
bends  all  his  energies  of  mind  and  heart  to  the 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


131 


task  of  finding  it.  This  whole  process  is  in  the 
highest  degree  voluntary  ;  but  in  the  act  of  believ- 
ing, in  deciding  what  truth  is,  the  final  step  is  de- 
termined by  the  testimony,  and  may,  therefore,  be 
described  as  involuntary.  To  men  like  our  pro- 
fessor, this  may  seem  to  make  the  wliole  matter  of 
believing  an  intellectual  process.  Well,  is  the 
primary  element  of  faith  an  act  of  the  mind?  Or 
is  it  a  mere  sentiment  ?  An  unexplained  impulse  of 
the  emotions  ?  Which  ?  The  scriptural  use  of  the 
word  belief  stamps  upon  faith  indelibly  the  nature 
of  the  intellect,  rather  than  that  of  the  sensibili- 
ties. Not  but  that,  in  the  larger  meaning  of  the 
term,  as  I  have  already  explained,  much  more 
than  this  is  included,  but  that  the  primary  act  of 
saving  faith  is  the  mind's  acceptance  of  the  testi- 
mony concerning  Christ ;  and,  consequently,  Christ 
himself,  as  Savior  and  Lord.  The  New  Testament 
writers  do  not  employ  words  with  the  cast-iron 
fixedness  of  theologians,  but  with  the  flexibility 
and  freedom  characteristic  of  common  men,  in  the 
full  exercise  of  their  common  sense.  So,  while  the 
primary  element  in  faith  is  intellectual,  in  its 
larger  meaning,  and  wider  scope,  it  includes  also 
the  heart  and  the  life.  I  may  quote  a  few  words 
here  from  a  sermon  preached  in  the  Fourth  Baptist 
Church,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  by  Rev.  L.  S.  Piker.  The 
text  was  Hebrews  XL  6.  I  quote  from  the  Globe- 
Democrat  of  Sept.  10th,  1888. 

" Faith"  he  said,  k>  is  founded  upon  evidence. 


132 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


The  intelligent,  thinking  Christian  has,  for  his 
faith  in  God,  abiding  internal  and  abounding  ex- 
ternal evidence.  Faith  has  never  been  unobjec- 
tionally  defined.  Definition,  according  to  the 
scholarly  Broadus,  teaches  of  what  elements  an 
idea,  as  a  whole,  is  composed."  *  *  *  "  To 
define  faith  is  no  easy  matter,  as  it  is  too  simple 
to  admit  of  simplifying.  "  The  primary  part  of 
faith,  according  to  the  text,  is  to  believe  that  God 
is  *  *  *  Thus  far,  a  person  might  believe  and 
still  not  exercise  saving  faith.  To  believe  that 
God  is,  meets  a  scriptural  demand,  but  not  the  en- 
tire demand  for  salvation/'  I  have  quoted  these 
words  simply  to  show  that  when  a  Baptist 
preacher  undertakes  to  expound  faith,  he  is  com 
pelled  to  admit  the  intellectual  ground  of  it,  and 
to  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  it  ''is  founded 
upon  evidence."  It  is  only  when  they  want  to 
inveigh  against  Sandemanianism,  that  Baptist 
preachers  and  Professors  transfer  faith  quite  away 
from  the  realm  of  the  intellect  to  that  of  the  emo- 
tions. The  simple  fact  is  that,  at  the  ground  of 
all  emotional  experiences  and  moral  determina- 
tions embraced  in  faith,  is  the  decision  of  the  intel- 
lect. In  its  narrower  and  more  elementary  sense, 
it  is  the  mind's  "  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what 
God  hath  said,"  while  in  the  more  comprehensive 
sense,  it  embraces  trust  in  Christ,  and  that  solemn 
commitment  of  the  soul  to  him,  which  can  only  be 
superinduced  by  means  of  it. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


133 


The  entire  representation  contained  in  the  sev- 
enth and  eighth  chapters  of  Prof.  Whitsitt's  book 
invites  sharp  criticism.  Even  Baptist  reviewers 
have  not  hesitated  to  express  the  opinion  that 
there  are  insinuations  here  which  are  not  war- 
ranted by  a  candid  survey  of  the  facts.  *The 
eighth  chapter  bears  the  sub-title,  "  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's Perversion  to  Sandemanianism,"  but  it 
would  have  more  exactly  expressed  its  real  char- 
acter to  have  named  it  "Prof.  Whitsitt's  perver- 
sion of  History  to  partisan  purposes."  He  tells 
us  truly  (P.  67)  that  Thomas  Campbell  proposed 
to  his  followers  (?)  "  as  a  basis  for  action,"  the  fol- 
lowing motto:  ''Where  the  Scriptures  speak,  we 
speak:  where  they  are  silent,  we  are  silent."  He 
is  kind  enough  to  admit  that  this  was  an  excellent 
ideal.  Indeed  he  says  (P.  68)  it  was  "a  neat  and 
popular  expression  of  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Mr.  Greville  Ewing."  But  strangely  enough, 
he  immediately  adds  that  "it  is  nothing  more 
than  what  is  professed  in  fact,  if  not  in  form,  by 
every  sect  of  religious  worshipers  in  Christendom. " 
However,  he  is  careful  to  say  that,  "in  the  mouth 
of  Thomas  Campbell,  it  probably  signified  nothing 
more  important  than  'When  Mr.  Ewing  speaks, 
we  speak;  and  when  he  is  silent,  we  are  silent.'" 
But  whether  '*  the  father  or  the  son  should  be 
awarded  the  credit  of  this  taking  expression  of 
the  leading  principle  of  Ewing" — yet  "  only  what 

*  See  Appendix. 


134 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


is  professed  by  every  sect  of  worshipers  in  Christ- 
endom"— he  thinks,  may  not  be  easily  deter- 
mined. True,  the  son  was  in  Scotland,  when  the 
father  first  employed  it,  but,  then,  it  is  naively 
suggested  that  he  ';  may  have  had  knowledge  of 
the  whole  business,"  and  may  have  mapped  out, 
under  E wing's  direction,  perhaps — who  knows  ? — 
the  order  in  which  each  successive  step  should  be 
taken  in  the  far  away  regions  of  the  new  World! 
Of  course,  the  object  of  this  is  to  minimize  the 
work  of  the  elder  Campbell,  but  more  especially 
to  suggest  a  possible  connection  of  his  movements 
here  with  the  Sandemanian  tenets  of  Greville  Ew- 
ing  on  the  other  side  of  the  sea.  But  even  Alex- 
ander Campbell,  it  seems,  was  not  destined  to 
lead,  uninterruptedly,  the  movement  which  he  is 
supposed  to  have,  in  a  sense,  originated.  Both 
the  Campbells,  Prof.  Whitsitt  is  anxious  to  have 
us  believe,  were  perfectly  content  with  the  "  asper- 
sion" they  had  received  in  infancy.  The  drift 
towards  immersion  in  the  little  church  at  Brush 
Run  was  due  to  others ;  the  Campbells  were  car- 
ried forward  by  a  current  which  they  were  power- 
less to  control.    Let  us  see  how  it  was  done. 

Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  reminiscenses,  which  I 
have  freely  quoted,  speaks  of  his  investigation  of 
the  baptismal  question  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
the  impression  that  it  followed  immediately  his 
talk  with  Dr.  Riddle  concerning  certain  words  in 
his  father's  Declaration  and  Address,  and  that  he 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


135 


continued  it  without  intermission,  until  lie  reached 
the  conviction,  not  only  that  infant  baptism  was 
unauthorized,  but  that  the  only  admissible  form 
of  the  ordinance  was  immersion.  This,  however, 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  quite  the  case.  He 
seems  indeed  to  have  thrown  aside,  after  having 
read  them,  the  works  in  favor  of  infant  baptism, 
which  had  been  sent  him,  disgusted  with  their 
fallacious  reasonings,  and  utterly  dissatisfied  with 
the  Pedo-baptist  position.  But  the  final  investi- 
gation, in  which  he  decided  the  whole  question  in 
the  light  of  the  Greek  Testament,  took  place  at  a 
somewhat  later  date.  During  this  interval,  his 
mind  seems  to  have  remained  in  a  state  of  relative 
indecision.  Nothing  was  more  natural.  The 
things  pressing  upon  him  chiefly  were  the  emanci- 
pation of  men's  minds  from  the  bondage  of  creeds, 
and  the  tyranny  of  church  establishments  not  au- 
thorized in  the  word  of  God,  and  also  the  de- 
velopment of  a  true  and  trustworthy  basis  for 
Christian  fellowship  and  co-operation  in  the 
Lord's  work.  Baptism  was  a  mooted  question, 
and  the  agitation  of  it  seemed  to  promise  strife 
rather  than  the  unity  which  he  had  at  heart. 
Naturally,  he  moved  slowly  in  a  matter  so  fraught 
with  danger.  Meantime,  there  was  constant 
study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  inevitably  more  or 
less  discussion  in  the  little  community  now  em- 
barked in  a  career  of  reformation.  At  the  first 
communion  service  after  the  organization  of  the 


136 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


church,  it  was  noticed  that  three  members  — 
Joseph  Bryant,  Margaret  Fullerton,  and  Abraham 
Altars — did  not  partake  of  the  emblems.  On  in- 
quiry, it  appeared  that  they  had  none  of  them 
been  baptized ;  as  Dr.  Richardson  expresses  it, 
k,none  of  them  had  received  baptism  at  all  in  any 
of  its  so-called  forms."  (Memoirs,  page  372). 
After  interviews,  resulting  in  a  common  under- 
standing, Thomas  Campbell  immersed  them.  But, 
of  course,  the  question  once  fairly  before  the  little 
church,  discussion  was  not  to  be  avoided.  Nor 
was  it  desirable  that  it  should  be.  Dr.  Richard- 
son casually  mentions  that  these  discussions,  con- 
tinued to  be  kept  up  during  the  absence  of  Alex- 
ander Campbell  on  a  preaching  tour  of  some 
weeks.  Prof.  WMtsitt  lays  hold  of  these  circum- 
stances to  concoct  a  tale  which  no  one  is  likely  to 
believe,  and  of  which  he  himself  should  be  thor- 
oughly ashamed.  He  represents  Joseph  Bryant 
and  James  Foster  as  having  been  very  active  in 
urging  the  immersionist  view.  Joseph  Bryant 
especially,  needed  to  be  concilliated.  He  was  a 
very  important  personage.  Indeed,  Prof.  Whit1 
sitt  conjectures  that  he  "  was  already  recognized 
as  an  elegible  match  for  Miss  Dorothea  Campbell, 
to  whom  he  was  united  in  marriage  about  twenty 
months  later.''  Under  such  circumstances  it  was 
not  easy  to  resist  him.  It  began  to  look  as  if  the 
church   at   Brush  Run  was  "going  to  pieces." 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


137 


"  Alexander  now  perceived  that  speedy  action 
must  be  had,  else  their  cause  was  lost." 

"If  Bryant  and  the  majority  of  the  little  com- 
munity at  Brush  Run  " — so  Prof.  Whitsitt  gravely 
writes — "could  have  been  induced  to  tolerate  as- 
persion, it  is  probable  that  the  Campbells  would 
never  have  found  it  convenient  to  leave  the  side  of 
the  sprinkling  Sandemanians."    Page  79. 

And  this — shall  we  believe  it  ? — is  what  passes 
with  some  Baptists  for  history  !  A  more  unwar- 
ranted imputation  of  unworthy  motives,  it  is  safe 
to  say,  has  never  been  uttered.  Suppose  that  the 
discussion  which  occurred  under  the  circumstances 
here  mentioned  did  have  something  to  do  with  the 
thorough  investigation  of  the  subject  by  Alexan- 
der Campbell  which  unmistakably  followed,  what 
of  that  ?  As  to  the  agitation  in  the  church,  and 
the  signs  of  a  general  disintegration  here  inti- 
mated, nothing  apparently  could  be  farther  from 
the  fact.  Concerning  the  state  of  the  -church  at 
this  very  time,  Dr.  Richardson  writes  as  follows": 
"  These  religious  meetings  were  sources  of  great 
enjoyment.  Warmly  attached  to  one  another  for 
the  truth's  sake,  and  sympathizing  with  each 
other  in  their  trials  and  religious  experiences, 
they  semed  to  be  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul. 
The  Bible  was  their  daily  study,  and  they  came  to 
the  assembly,  like  bees  to  a  hive,  laden  with  the 
s^veet  lessons  of  instruction  it  afforded,  and  ready 


138 


OKTOTX  OF  THE 


to  say  ill  the  language  of  the  Psalm  they  hart 
sung  at  their  organization  : 

1  God  is  the  Lord,  who,  unto  us 
Hath  made  light  to  arise.'  " 

But  Prof.  Whitsitt,  full  of  his  own  absurd  fan- 
tasies, passes  all  this  unnoticed.  His  role  is  that 
of  the  small  pettifogger,  and,  it  must  be  confessed, 
he  has  played  it  not  unskillfully.  A  man  may  be 
forgiven  much,  who  writes  or  speaks  in  the  heat  of 
theological  debate,  but  Prof.  Whitsitt  has  no  such 
excuse.  He  has  written  deliberately,  "  with 
malice,"  it  may  be  said,  "  and  aforethought."  To 
seriously  ask  us  to  receive,  as  history,  the  things 
which  he  has  here  written,  must  be  regarded  as 
the  climax  of  effrontery.  Mr.  Campbell's  long 
and  faithful  Christian  life  places  his  memory  be- 
yond the  reach  of  such  petty,  partisan  attempts 
to  darken  it  with  dishonor.  And  yet,  it  is  to  be 
regretted  that  the  rancor  and  bigotry,  which  as- 
sailed him  with  all  sorts  of  detraction  during  his 
life,  could  not,  now  that  he  has  gone,  reverently 
leave  his  character  to  the  final  decision  of  Him 
who  is  the  Judge  both  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 
In  this  work  of  detraction,  Prof.  Whitsitt  is  in- 
genious, after  a  sort,  but  he  is  far  from  ingenuous. 
The  facts  given  by  Dr.  Richardson  are  explained 
out  of  his  own  perverse  fancy  in  such  way  as  to 
give  plausible  coloring  to  a  picture  which  is  too 
unlike  the  reality  to  be  even  a  good  caricature. 
It  is  needless  to  follow  him,  item  by  item,  in  this 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


139 


part  of  his  work.  It  would  be  ungrateful  toil, 
and,  happily,  there  is  not  the  least  reason  for  its 
performance.  As  a  single  example,  however,  of 
this  character  of  work,  the  following  is  offered. 

On  page  74,  it  is  said  :  "  Alexander  rejected  for 
awhile  the  conceit  of  Ewing  and  the  Sandeman- 
ians,  that  faith  is  nothing  other  than  mere  belief, 
which  is  produced  by  testimony  alone,  without 
reference  to  the  regenerating  grace  of  God" 
And  further  down  on  the  same  page,  we  find  this : 
u  The  7th  of  April  1811,  is  the  latest  date  on 
which,  according  to  his  biographer,  he  was  willing 
to  affirm  that  faith  is  of  the  operation  of  God,  and 
an  effect  of  almighty  power  and  regenerating 
grace." 

Now  the  untheological  reader  will  utterly  fail  to 
appreciate,  or  even  to  perceive,  the  exquisite  touch 
of  our  historian's  art,  as  here  exhibited.  His  con- 
clusion will  be  prompt,  and  free  from  any  misgiv- 
ing, that,  according  to  Dr.  Richardson,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's chosen  biographer,  the  latter  denied,  from 
the  date  here  mentioned,  all  divine  agency  in  the 
production  of  faith,  and  rejected  outright  the 
grace  of  God  in  regeneration.  But  such  a  conclu- 
sion is  far  from  the  truth.  Mr.  Campbell  always 
believed  that  regeneration,  or  change  of  heart,  is 
of  the  grace  of  God,  through  faith.  But  the  thing 
which  Mr.  C.  never  believed  after  the  afore-men- 
tioned date,  is  the  unscriptural  and  irrational  as- 
sumption that  " faith  is  the  effect  of  almighty 


140 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


power  and.  regenerating  grace."  Notice  the  two 
predicates :  (1)  faith  is  the  effect  of  omnipotent 
power,  (2)  it  is  the  effect  of  regeneration,  or  follows 
regeneration.  Of  course,  Alexander  Campbell, 
through  his  long  life,  rejected  both  these  unrea- 
sonable and  nnbiblical  assumptions.  But  Dr. 
Richardson,  in  the  very  connection  referred  to  by 
Mr.  W-j  is  careful  to  say  that  he  always  "  retained 
the  idea  of  a  divine  interposition*  out  came  to  re- 
gard it  as  a  providential  agency,  rather  than  as  a 
direct  operation  of  the  Spirit,  as  held  by  popular 
parties."  Thus  the  velvet  touch  of  the  accom- 
plished caricaturist  is  exposed  to  vulgar  eyes! 
Pity  that  manly  and  candid  Baptists,  who  love 
truth  and  adore  the  Savior,  should  be  in  danger  of 
"perversion"  from  one  who  seems  to  imagine  he 
is  doing  God  service  by  offering  insult  to  the  liv- 
ing, and  defaming  the  memory  of  the  dead. 

But,  touching  the  relation  of  testimon}'  to  faith 
as  here  referred  to,  and  as  held  by  Mr.  Campbell, 
a  few  words  may  not  be  out  of  place.  It  is  true 
that  Mr.  Campbell  always  maintained  the  neces- 
sity of  testimony  in  order  to  faith.  He  saw 
clearly,  or  at  least  thought  he  saw  clearly,  that, 
between  the  divine  testimony  concerning  Jesus, 
and  the  faith  in  him.  which  saves  the  soul,  there 
is  a  certain  fixed  and  definite  connection,  grounded, 
evermore,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  soul  itself.  To 
give  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 
this  connection  is  positively  taught,  or  fairly  indi- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


141 


cated,  would  be  to  transcribe  no  small  portion  of 
the  book.  This  conception,  which  is  biblically 
true,  by  a  hundred  unmistakable  passages,  is  be- 
yond all  doubt  a  demand  of  reason  as  well.  The 
faith  which  saves,  if  Paul  may  be  believed, 
"Comes  by  hearing  the  word  of  God."  If  John 
understood  himself  at  all,  it  is  the  product  of  the 
divine  testimony.  Listen  to  his  words  :  "It  is  the 
Spirit  that  bears  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  the 
truth.  For  there  are  three  who  bear  witness,  the 
Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood;  and  the 
three  agree  in  one.  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men, 
the  witness  of  God  is  greater ;  for  the  witness  of 
God  is  this,  that  he  hath  borne  witness  concerning 
his  Son.  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God 
hath  the  witness  in  him ;  he  that  believeth  not 
God  hath  made  him  a  liar ;  because  he  hath  not 
believed  in  the  witness  God  hath  borne  concerning 
his  Son;'    (1  Jno.  5:  7-11,  R.  V.) 

Does  Prof.  Whitsitt  imagine  that  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  necessary  relation  between  testimony 
and  faith  is  a  denial  of  God's  providence,  or  the 
Spirit's  agency  I  He  writes,  indeed,  as  if  he  were 
disturbed  by  some  such  fantasy.  But  it  is  not  to 
be  thought  this  disturbance  is  real.  He  knows 
better.  He  only  seeks  to  mislead,  concerning  Mr. 
Campbell  aad  the  Disciples,  those  who  do  not 
know  better;  namely,  a  great  many  Baptists,  and. 
perhaps,  some  who  are  not  Baptists,  but  who  are 
only  too  willing  to  believe  an  evil  report  against 


142 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


those  who  are  not  in  ecclesiastical  affiliation  with 
themselves.  AY  ill  Prof.  Whitsitt  undertake  to 
say  that  any  one  has  ever  believed  in  Christ  with- 
out having  heard  the  gospel  ?  Will  he  assert  that, 
where  the  gospel  is  preached,  faith  is  "of  the  al- 
mighty power,  and  regenerating  grace  of  God," 
independent  of  divine  testimony,  through  the 
word?  He  will  assert  no  such  thing.  It  is  too 
late  in  the  day  for  college  professors  to  stultify 
themselves  by  affirming  such  an  absurdity.  If 
there  is  one  thing  more  than  another  which  this  age 
demands  of  its  religious  teachers,  it  is  that  no  insult 
shall  be  offered  to  the  most  certain  judgments  of 
a  trained  and  reverent  intellect.  It  was  otherwise 
when  Alexander  Campbell  began  his  great  work, 
but  it  shall  not  be  otherwise  any  more  until  the 
Lord  comes  to  judge  the  world.  The  spirit  of 
mysticism  and  fetichism  is  well  nigh  exorcised 
now,  in  Christian  lands,  from  all  human  souls. 
And  it  is  well  that  such  is  the  case.  It  has  had 
sway  quite  long  enough.  Intelligent  Christians 
will  maintain  the  fact  of  divine  agency,  and  the 
necessity  of  divine  truth  and  testimony,  in  order 
to  faith  and  regeneration,  henceforth  to  the  end  of 
the  world. 

Prof.  Whitsitt  is  unwilling  to  give  the  least 
credit  of  originality  to  the  Canrpbells.  They  al- 
ways copied  from  some  one  else.  They  were  only 
slavish  followers  of  Greville  Ewing,  at  one  time, 
and  of  Archibald  M'Lean  at  another.    In  the 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


143 


matter  of  "baptism  for  remission  of  sins  "  the  im- 
pression is  at  first  sought  to  be  made  that  it  was 
derived  from  M  '  Lean.  But  nothing  can  be  more 
absurd.  M 5  Lean  positively  taught,  as  was  here- 
tofore stated,  that  justification  follows  immedi- 
ately the  act  of  believing  so  as  to  antedate  not 
only  all  obedience  to  ordinances,  but  even  the 
holy  disposition  of  the  soul  itself,  which  he  re- 
garded as  the  first  effect  of  faith.  Otherwise,  says 
M'Lean,  it  conld  not  be  said:  "  He  justifieth  the 
ungodly."  But  M'Lean  has  "  so  guarded  his 
utterances, "  says  Prof.  Whitsitt,  "  that  it  might 
be  in  the  power  of  an  opponent  to  afhrrti  that  he 
was  not  a  thorough-paced  advocate  of  the  theory 
of  baptismal  remission."  (P.  93).  No  doubt, 
M'Lean  guarded  very  carefully  his  utterances,  to 
the  end  that  no  one  should  have  grounds  to  mis- 
represent him.  But,  alas !  what  watchfulness  can 
thoroughly  anticipate  and  shut  off  the  malign  dis- 
tortions of  theological  partisans!  Men  like  our 
Professor  defy  the  most  conscientious  attempts  to 
guard  against  the  perversion  of  their  utterances. 
But  while  M'Lean  guarded  his  utterances  care- 
fully, if  we  may  credit  Prof.  Whitsitt,  it  was  not 
so  with  a  certain  "  Scotch  Baptist  Church  "  in  the 
city  of  New  York.  This  church  sent  out,  it  seems, 
a  sort  of  circular  letter,  which  is  supposed  to  have 
been  "  forwarded  to  all  the  Sandemanian  churches 
of  the  immersion  observance  in  America."  Tin's 
letter,  it  is  contended,  boldy  avowed  kk  the  same 


144 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


view  regarding  the  design  of  baptism  to  which  the 
Campbells  later  gave  their  adhesion."  "  The 
same  texts,  which  the  sect  of  Disciples  (or  Camp- 
bellites)  are  in  the  habit  of  setting  forward,  are 
produced  in  this  pamphlet,  and  handled  in  much 
the  same  way,  in  order  to  support  the  conclusion 
that  baptism  was  designed  for  the  remission  of 
sins." 

This  is  only  a  half  truth  ;  indeed,  it  is  scarcely 
that.  The  texts  of  Scripture,  which  speak  of  "the 
uses  and  purposes  for  which  baptism  was  ap- 
pointed," are  indeed  carefully  given,  and  their  im- 
portance is  duly  insisted  upon  ;  but  the  conclu- 
sion that  ''baptism  is  for  remission  of  sins"  is 
conspicuous  only  by  its  entire  absence.  If  Bro. 
Baxter,  in  his  life  of  Scott,  has  intimated  the  con- 
trary, then  he  was  mistaken.  There  is  no  bap- 
tism for  remission  of  sins  in  tliis  New  Yor~k  letter. 
What  was  Professor  Whitsitt  thinking  about, 
when  he  read — or  did  he  read  ?-^-the  following 
paragraph  in  said  letter  ? 

"  No  one  who  has  been  in  the  habit  of  consider- 
ing it  (baptism)  merely  as  an  ordinance  (or  rite, 
G.  W.  L.)  can  read  these  passages  with  attention 
without  being  surprised  at  the  wonderful  powers, 
and  qualities,  and  effects,  and  uses,  which  are 
there  apparently  " — please  notice  this  word — '  as- 
cribed to  it.'  "If  the  language  employed  respect- 
ing it,  in  many  of  the  passages  were  "  to  be  taken 
literally" — please  note  this — it  would  import  that 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


145 


remission  of  sins  is  to  be  obtained  by  baptism, 
that  escape  from  the  wrath  to  come  is  effected  in 
baptism,  that  men  are  born  children  of  God  by 
baptism,  etc.,  etc.''  "All  these  things,  if  all  the 
passages  before  us  were  construed  literally  would 
be  ascribed  to  baptism.  And  it  was  a  literal  con 
struction  of  these  passages  which  led  professed 
Christians  in  the  early  ages  to  believe  that  bap- 
tism was  necessary  to  salvation.  Hence  arose  in- 
fant baptism,  and  other  customs  equally  unau- 
thorized. And,  from  a  like  literal  construction  of 
the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  at  the  last  supper, 
arose  the  awful  notion  of  transubstantiation." 

Now  the  careful  reader  has  not  failed  to  see  (1), 
that  certain  things  are  here  said  to  be  taught  con- 
cerning baptism,  provided,  that  the  words  of  the 
texts  referred  to  are  to  be  construed  literally:  but, 
(2),  that  the  literal  construction  is  clearly  repudi- 
ated as  untenable.  How  the  authors  did  construe 
these  passages,  will  appear  from  their  own  words, 
as  follows  : 

"  It  is  for  the  churches  of  God,  therefore,  to  con- 
sider well,  whether  it  does  not  clearly  and  forcibly 
appear  from  what  is  said  of  baptism  in  the  passages 
before  us,  taken  each  in  its  proper  connection, 
that  baptism  was  appointed  as  an  institution 
strikingly  significant  of  several  of  the  most  im- 
portant things  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
whether  it  was  not  in  baptism  that  men  professed 
by  deed,  as  they  had  already  done  by  word,  to 

10 


146 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


have  the  remission  of  sins  through  the  death  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  to  have  a  firm  persuasion  of 
being  raised  from  the  dead  through  him  and  after 
his  example;  whether  it  was  not  in  baptism  that  they 
put  off  the  ungodly  character  and  its  lusts,  and 
put  on  the  new  life  of  righteousness  ;  whether  it 
was  not  in  baptism  that  they  professed  to  have 
their  sins  washed  away,  through  the  blood  of  the 
Lord  and  Savior,  etc." 

I  need  not  quote  more  fully.  It  is  absolutely 
clear  that  the  church  which  sent  forth  this  letter 
entertained  precisely  the  same  view  of  the  design 
of  baptism  which  is  held  by  the  Associated  Bap- 
tists throughout  this  country,  at  the  present  time. 
Baptism,  on  the  part  of  the  recipient,  was  a  pro- 
fession in  act,  of  having  received  already  the  re- 
mission of  sins  ;  as  respects  the  divine  purpose  in 
requiring  it,  it  was  intended  to  set  forth  symbol- 
ically the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin  through 
the  blood  of  Christ.  This,  and  only  this,  was  in 
it.  If  they  dwelt  with  more  emphasis  upon  its 
importance  than  Baptists  are  now  expected  to  do, 
the  fact  may  be  explained  by  considering  that 
they  were  not  under  the  same  necessity  of  guard- 
ing their  words  to  keep  off  suspicion  of  sympathy 
with  the  heresies  of  the  Disciples  and  New  Testa- 
ment Christians.  This  whole  matter  is  conspicu- 
ously plain  and  simple. 

Concerning  Prof.  Whitsitt's  insistent  efforts  to 
depreciate  and  belittle  the  Campbells  as  men  of 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


147 


intellectual  power,  nothing  more  than  a  word  of 
reference  is  here  necessary.  Thomas  Campbell, 
he  tell  us,  was  only  a  '*  convenient  echo  ;  "  and  if 
ever  Alexander  "  had  an  original  idea,  he  took 
pains  to  avoid  giving  expression  to  it  in  such  of 
his  writings  as  have  been  submitted  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  the  public." 

No  doubt  our  Professor  needed  to  let  off  the  gall 
which  was  in  him,  and  if  such  words  as  these  an- 
swered that  purpose,  we  need  make  no  complaint. 
If,  in  face  of  the  intelligence  of  the  age,  he  can 
choose  to  express  himself  in  this  fashion,  it  is  his 
affair,  not  ours.  No  friend  of  the  Campbells  need 
care  to  say  one  word  in  reply. 

It  might  be  well  to  have  a  thoughtful  compari- 
son of  the  views  of  the  Disciples  and  Baptists. 
Perhaps,  some  day,  we  shall  have  it.  But  Prof. 
Whitsitt's  book  adds  nothing  valuable  to  the  lit- 
erature of  this  long,  and  too  often  bitter,  contro- 
versy. 


148 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  BAPTISTS. 

Against  the  Baptist  people,  as  such,  I  have  no 
hard  words  to  utter ;  I  recall  no  personal  griev- 
ances, leaving  bitter  memories,  which  might 
justify,  even  on  the  world's  principle  of  retalia- 
tion, any  harsh  or  unkind  criticism.  I  owe  them 
nothing  but  love.  There  is  not  a  man  of  them  all, 
who  follows  sincerely  and  reverently  the  Lord 
Jesus,  albeit,  like  the  rest  of  us,  oftentimes,  at  a 
distance,  and  with  unsteady  step,  that  I  do  not 
unfeignedly  love  for  Jesus'  sake. 

There  is  not  a  single  such  follower  of  Christ 
among  them  that  I  do  not  habitually  recognize 
and  treat  as  a  brother  in  the  common  faith.  He 
may  cling  to  much  u  foolishness  "  in  theology,  or 
dwell  with  fond  delight  on  certain  pietistic  super- 
stitions connected  with  his  "  experience  "  of  God's 
grace  in  his  soul — a  thing  he  is  quite  sure  to  do — 
and  it  makes  no  difference  at  all.  If  he  bear  the 
"  image  and  superscription  "  of  the  Lord-  Jesus, 
God  has  received  him,  with  all  his  imperfections 
of  knowledge  and  life,  and  who  am  I,  that  I  should 
reject  one  of  these  "  little  ones  "  for  whom  Christ 
died?  Upon  this  principle  the  Disciples  have 
always  acted.  A  letter  from  a  Baptist  church  has 
always  been  a  sufficient  passport  to  our  fellow- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


149 


ship.  It  has  mattered  nothing  at  all  that  there 
has  been  no  reciprocity  in  our  relations  with  them. 
We  have  remained  true  to  our  divine  law  of  affili- 
ation throughout  all  the  keen  controversies  and 
unfraternal  imputations  of  evil  heresies,  in  the 
seventy-five  years  (speaking  in  round  numbers) 
which  have  passed  away  since  our  movement  first 
began  to  assume  definite  shape.  To  this  principle 
we  shall  be  true  hereafter,  as  we  have  been  here- 
tofore, whatever  the  coming  years  may  have  in 
store  for  us. 

But  why  should  our  Baptist  brethren — any  of 
them — put  on  airs  in  talking  about  us  I  Why 
write  articles  in  their  papers,  or  books  even,  whose 
chief  characteristic  is  the  partisan's  bitter  sneer  ? 
Are  we  not  every  whit  their  equals  in  whatever 
gives  prestige  and  power  to  a  body  of  Christian 
believers  ?  Nay,  taking  into  account  our  briefer 
history  as  a  distinct  people,  are  we  not  rapidly 
gaining  upon  them  in  all  the  elements  of  ;*  denom- 
inational "  greatness  i  If  I  may  speak  foolishly, 
''in  this  confidence  of  boasting,''  as  it  were,  I 
would  say  that  it  concerns  us  not  at  all — save  for 
the  honor  of  our  common  Christianity — what  tha 
narrow-minded  zealots  of  any  sect  in  Christendom 
may  choose  to  say  about  us.  The  time  has  gone 
by  when  the  odium  theologicum  could  be  used  suc- 
cessfully as  a  weapon  against  us.  Save  for  the 
honor  of  the  Lord's  cause,  so  often  put  to  shame 
by  his  professed  friends,  there  is  no  reason  why 


150 


ORTGIN  OF  THE 


we  should  give  ourselves  a  moment's  anxiety  over 
any  of  these  things.  But  for  this,  we  could  listen 
patiently  to  Prof.  Whitsitt,  and  all  the  rest,  as  long 
as  they  find  comfort  in  pouring  out  the  bitterness 
that  is  in  them.  For  the  harm  it  does  us  we  are 
not  greatly  concerned. 

But  who  are  these  Baptist  people,  from  whose 
ranks  some  one  arises  ever  and  anon,  "  speaking 
great  swelling  words  of  vanity  ?  "  What  is  tlieir 
"  origin  ? "  What  their  history  ?  Was  John  the 
Baptizer  their  founder?  Have  they  had  a  contin- 
uous existence  through  all  the  centuries  since? 
There  are  indeed  some  partisans  among  them  who 
would  fain  have  men  think  so.  Their  real  schol- 
ars do  not  pretend  to  any  such  thing.  They  know 
better,  and  are  candid  enough  to  tell  what  they 
know. 

But,  really,  now,  how  shall  we  define  a  Baptist  ? 
How  shall  we  differentiate  him  ?  In  point  of  fact 
he  is  a  vague  specimen.  There  are  General  Bap- 
tists, Particular  Baptists,  and  "  Scottish  Baptists," 
in  the  mother  country ;  there  are  Missionary  Bap- 
tists and  Anti-missionary  Baptists  ;  Baptists  that 
are  Calvinists,  and  Baptists  that  believe  in  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will;  to  say  nothing  of 
Seventh  Day  Baptists,  of  Six  Principle  Baptists, 
and  of  German  Baptists,  or  Tunkers,  all  here  in 
our  own  America.  The  reader  sees  the  difficulty. 
To  which  of  these  half  dozen  sects,  all  claiming  to 
be  "  Baptists  "  par  excellence,  shall  we  accord  the 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


151 


honor  of  calling  it  the  Baptist  Church  ?  And 
what  are  the  relations  of  these  Baptist  sects  to 
each  other?  Do  they  mutually  give  and  receive 
letters  of  commendation?  Do  they  break  bread 
with  each  other  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Not  to  any 
great  extent,  certainly.  But  our  special  anxiety 
is  to  find  the  Baptist  Church.  Can  Prof.  Whit- 
sitt  locate  it  ?  Will  he  he  give  us  its  metes  and 
bounds,  so  that  we  can  speak  advisedly  in  regard 
to  it  ?  He  will  scarcely  undertake  so  hopeless  a 
task.  Or,  if  he  should  see  that  no  aggregation  of 
Baptist  local  communities  can  be  called  a  church, 
in  the  New  Testament  sense  of  the  term,  and  so 
prefer  to  speak  of  Baptist  churches,  and  of  the 
"Baptist  denomination,"  would  he  be  so  kind  as 
to  indicate  clearly  the  latter's  exact  comprehen- 
sion ?  How  many  of  these  sects,  popularly  called 
Baptists,  are  outside  of  the  Baptist  denomination, 
as  Prof.  Whitsitt  would  employ  that  expression  ? 
If  a  member  of  Spurgeon's  Baptist  church  of  the 
free  communion  "observance, "  for  instance,  should 
offer  a  letter  to  a  Baptist  church  of  the  close  com- 
munion "  observance,"  here  in  America,  would  it 
be  received  at  par  value  in  such  church  ?  Or,  if  a 
Free  Will  Baptist  should  bring  a  letter  from  his 
church  in  New  England  to  the  Baptist  church  in 
Louisville,  in  which  Prof.  Whitsitt  has  his  mem- 
bership, how  would  he  be  received  ?  Would  his 
letter  be  received  as  coming  from  "  a  sister  church 
of  the  same  faith  and  order?"    Do  "  Primitive  " 


152 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


Baptists  and  Missionary  BajDtists  mutually  recog- 
nize each  other's  baptism  and  sound  Baptistic 
order  and  orthodoxy  i  Do  they  give  letters  to,  . 
and  receive  letters  from,  each  other,  as  of  the 
same  faith  and  order  \  Of  course,  an  outsider  can 
not  know  all  about  the  "  usage"  in  such  cases, 
but  he  need  not  wholly  repress  his  curiosity.  It 
is  laudable  to  desire  information  upon  doubtful 
points,  when  circumstances  give  importance  to 
them.  Now  of  course  the  ''Scottish  Baptists" 
are  not  Baptists  at  all,  but  only  ';  Sandemanians 
of  the  immersion  observance."  And  of  course  we 
are  to  suppose  that  Prof  Whiteitt  would  not  think 
of  receiving  into  fellowship  a  Scotch  Baptist  with- 
out a  formal  renunciation  of  his  Sandemanianism. 
He  might,  perhaps,  go  behind  his  letter,  and  ex- 
amine him  on  his  "  experience."  But  that  would 
amount  to  nothing.  A  genuine  Scotch  Baptist 
can  tell  quite  as  good  a  Baptistic  experience  as 
Prof.  Whiteitt  himself ;  and  this  our  learned  pro- 
fessor very  well  knows.  He  is  as  sound  on  de- 
pravity, on  divine  sovereignty,  on  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit,  on  personal  election,  as  the  soundest 
professor  in  any  Baptist  Seminary  in  America. 
He  can  not  be  shut  out  by  any  of  these  tests. 
Call  him  "a  Sandemanian  of  the  immersion  ob- 
servance," and  refuse  him  fellowship  on  that 
ground.    You  must  do  that,  or  receive  him. 

But  what  then?  If  you  receive  him  you  recog- 
nize his  Sandemanian  heresy,  or  at  least  account 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


153 


it  no  bar  to  fellowship  (which  is  indeed  the  only 
sensible  thing  to  be  done  in  such  a  case),  and  if 
yon  do  not  receive  him,  3  ou  violate  what  is  said  to 
be  a  fundamental  usage  of  the  Baptist  people, 
which  has  obtained  among  them,  with  more  or 
less  uniformity,  from  time  immemorial,  namely, 
not  to  make  speculative  differences — such  differ- 
ences as  affect  not  "  a  true  experience  of  God's 
grace  in  the  soul" — a  bar  to  fellowship.  Is  a 
man  less  a  Baptist  because  he  is  a  Calvinist  or  an 
anti-Calvinist?  Is  he  less  or  more  a  Baptist  be- 
cause he  doubts  the  divine  origin,  or  sound  expe- 
diency of  Missionary  Societies?  Baptists  were 
not  wont  in  the  old  days  to  regard  these  questions 
as  presenting  an  insurmountable  bar  to  fellow- 
ship. At  the  time  of  the  division  between  mis- 
sionary, and  anti- missionary  Baptists  here  in  the 
great  West,  the  position  of  the  missionary  party 
gave  them  an  advantage  which  served  them  a 
most  excellent  purpose  while  the  work  of  separa- 
tion was  going  on.  They  said,  "  Let  us  have  no 
quarrel  over  this  matter.  Let  our  churches  be  free 
to  follow  their  convictions.  Let  the  individual 
members  in  every  church  have  the  same  freedom." 
This  was  sound  and  scriptural.  It  was  common 
prudence  as  well.  Nay',  it  was  more ;  it  was  the 
shrewdest  sort  of  strategy.  That  the  missionary 
leaven  would  finally  leaven  pretty  much  the  whole 
Baptist  lump,  was  clear  to  the  far-seeing  leaders, 
provided  it  could  only  have  time  to  diffuse  itself. 


154 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


If  the  churches  could  be  held  together,  while  the 
leavening  process  was  going  on,  the  end  was  sure. 
But  clearly,  in  the  event  of  separation,  the  burden 
of  responsibility  would  rest  with  the  separatists. 
The  wisdom  of  these  missionary  leaders  is  appar- 
ent to  every  one  now.  Call  it  conscience  or  strat- 
egy, the  effect  was  the  same.  Multitudes  remained 
in  the  churches,  and  finally  became  good  mis- 
sionary Baptists,  who  would  have  gone  out  so  fast 
that  you  could  not  have  counted  them,  if  the  issue 
had  been  too  hotly  pressed.  Indeed,  in  not  a  few 
cases,  the  majority  would  have  been  on  the  anti- 
missionary  side.  But  the  point  in  all  this,  which 
concerns  the  present  argument,  is  the  manifest  dif- 
ficulty of  ascertaining  the  conditions  which  deter- 
mine a  true  Baptistic  status,  in  relation  both  to 
individuals  and  churches.  Perhaps  Professor 
Whitsitt  was  not  thinking  about  this  difficulty, 
when  he  so  unceremoniously  thrust  the  whole 
Scottish  Baptist  fraternity  outside  the  pale  of  gen- 
uine Baptistism.  They  do  not  even  belong,  in  his 
classification,  to  what  some  Baptists  are  wont,  on 
occasion,  to  call  "  the  Baptist  family."  They  are 
only  "  Sandemanians  of  the  immersion  observ- 
ance." For  shame,  Prof.  Whitsitt!  Are  not 
Scotch  Baptists  as  good  Christians  as  Prof.  Whit- 
sitt himself?  And  have  they  not  as  much  right, 
if  they  choose  to  do  so,  to  call  themselves  Bap- 
tists ?  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it,  at  all.  Now 
the  truth  we  are  seeking  seems  to  be  this  :  While 


DISOIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


155 


Baptists  have  not  been  outspoken  in  denying  to 
speculative  differences  of  the  sort  we  have  here 
referred  to  the  importance  which  "belongs  only  to 
questions  of  fellowship,  there  has  been,  neverthe- 
less, to  a  certain  extent,  a  sort  of  tacit  recognition 
among  them  of  that  great  principle.  They  might, 
indeed,  separate  into  sects  over  such  differences, 
but  they  still  remained  Baptistic  sects.  They 
belonged  in  common  to  the  great  "  Baptist  fam- 
ily," and  when  the  Baptist  Israel  was  to  be  num- 
bered, they  were  entitled  to  be  counted.  So,  like- 
wise, when  Baptist  histories  were  to  be  written, 
their  claim  to  a  true  Baptistic  character  was  duly 
recognized.  Thus,  there  are  different  "  orders  "  of 
Baptists,  but — shall  we  put  it  in  that  way  ? — only 
one  true  Baptistic  test ;  namely,  the  faith  in 
Christ,  and  that  one  faith  expressed  in  immersion, 
as  the  one  divine  form  of  baptism.  Is  it  this 
faith,  expressed  in  the  one  baptism,  which  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  true  and  only  test  of  Baptistic 
status?  If  so,  the  "  Baptist  family"  is  indeed  a 
large  family,  or  rather  a  tribe,  including  several 
families,  as  the  one  Israel  of  old  included  the 
twelve  tribes.  But  is  it  indeed  true  that  faith  in 
Christ  expressed  in  Christian  baptism  (immer- 
sion), constitutes  the  one  condition  of  church  and 
Christian  fellowship  among  Baptists  ?  We  should 
hesitate  to  accept  this  statement,  and  yet  it  is 
supported  by  very  high  Baptist  authority.  I  give 
for  the  reader's  consideration  the  following  para- 


156 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


graph  from  the  introduction  to  Orchard's  History 
of  the  Baptists  (Tenth  Edition,  Nashville,  Tenn., 
1855). 

"The  ground  of  unity  and  denominational 
claim  to  the  people  whose  Christian  characters 
are  detailed,  is  not  the  harmony  of  their  creeds  or 
views  ;  this  was  not  visible  or  essential  in  the  first 
age ;  but  the  bond  of  union,  among  our  denomi- 
nation in  all  ages,  has  been  faith  in  christ  ;  and 
that  faith  publicly  expressed  by  a  voluntary 
submission  to  his  authority  and  doctrine  in  bap- 
tism."   Introduction,  p.  14. 

I  give  this  extract  with  capitals  and  italics,  just 
as  I  find  it  in  the  book.  The  words  are  those  of 
Mr.  Orchard,  quoted  in  an  introductory  essay, 
signed  with  the  initials  J.  R.  G.,  i.  e.,  J.  R.  Graves, 
then  of  Nashville,  Tenn.  Of  course  Mr.  Graves  is 
presumed  to  have  given  his  endorsement  to  the 
extract  by  quoting  it  without  objection.  But 
surely  he  must  have  hesitated  to  do  this.  The 
canon  here  laid  down  is  one  that  reaches  very  far 
indeed,  and  a  Baptist  of  Mr.  Graves'  school  could 
hardly  accept  it,  ex  animo,  as  a  statement  of  fact,  if 
he  had,  at  the  time,  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
question.  But  Mr.  Orchard  doubtless  meant  what 
he  said.  He  saw  clearly  that  any  plausible  at- 
tempt to  make  out  a  Baptistic  succession  would 
depend  upon  the  adoption  of  a  very  liberal  test  of 
Baptist  character;  and  in  the  freer  and  larger 
spirit  of  the  English  Baptists,  was  satisfied  with 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


157 


the  rule,  as  he  here  gives  it.  Can  we  hope  to  get 
our  American  Baptists  to  see  and  acknowledge 
what  Mr.  Orchard's  rule  really  means,  and  then  to 
cordially  accept  it  as  a  sound  test  of  Baptist 
orthodoxy  3  If  so,  it  is  certain  that  a  great  point 
will  have  been  gained. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  we  should  say  it  is  not  true 
that  the  bond  of  union  among  Baptists  has  al- 
ways, or  ever,  been  what  Mr.  Orchard  represents 
it  to  have  been.  In  his  desire  to  make  out  some 
sort  of  Baptistic  succession  from  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  he  gives  up  the  Baptist  bond  of  union, 
as  utterly  untenable  for  his  purpose,  and  adopts, 
outright,  that  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ.  "The 
bond  of  union  among  our  denomination,"  he  says, 
"has  always  been  faith  in  Christ,  and  that  faith 
publicly  expressed  by  a  voluntary  submission 
to  Ms  authority  and  doctrine  in  baptism"  It  is 
simply  impossible  to  express  in  words  more  deii- 
nitely  the  view  of  this  subject  maintained  by  the 
Disciples  from  the  very  beginning,  only,  with  us, 
this  bond  of  union  is  held  to  be  the  test  of  fellow- 
ship for  all  Christian  churches,  instead  of  a  de- 
nominational, or  party  test.  Mr.  Orchard's  canon 
of  ecclesiastical  fellowship  is  catholic  or  Chris- 
tian, and  in  no  true  sense  Baptistic.  But,  as 
was  said  a  moment  since,  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  sort  of  under-current  of  conviction  that 
some  such  rule  was  demanded  by  the  claim  Bap- 
tists were  constantly  setting  up  to  some  sort  of 


158 


OKIGIN  OF  THE 


denominational  continuity  in  history.  On  any 
other  principle  than  the  broad  one  here  laid  down, 
it  was  clear  that  no  shadow  even  of  plausibility 
could  be  imparted  to  such  a  claim.  Hence,  for 
the  purpose  of  tracing  Baptistic  succession,  a  law 
of  affiliation  is  laid  down  as  denominational, 
while,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  practice  among 
Baptists  has  always  been  very  different.  Are  all 
the  sects  of  Baptists  which  do  positively  maintain 
a  separate  existence  to  be  counted  together  as  the 
Baptist  denomination,  as  Orchard's  rule  implies  ? 
If  so,  why  not  go  a  step  further,  and  abolish  alto- 
gether the  principle  of  sect-fellowship  on  agree- 
ment in  doctrinal  beliefs,  and  merge  all  these  dis- 
tinct factions  into  one  single  Baptist  fraternity, 
upon  the  larger  and  more  catholic  basis  here  laid 
down  ?  It  is  certain  that  these  Baptist  sects  are 
kept  apart  by  their  "  doctrinal  differences,"  which 
constitute,  therefore,  the  real  bonds  of  union  in 
Baptist  practice,  while  Mr.  Orchard's  bond  of 
union  is  a  purely  theoretical  one,  devised  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  a  sort  of  logical  basis  to  the 
plea  of  Baptistic  succession.  So  the  question  re- 
turns, Who  are  the  Baptists  ?  By  what  rule  shall 
we  know  them  ?  Is  the  larger  faction  to  be  taken 
as  the  denomination,  and  the  rest  to  be  regarded 
as  heretical,  or,  at  least,  disorderly  "offshoots" 
from  the  true  stock  ?  How  is  this  ?  And  upon  the 
offshoot  theory,  may  it  not  appear  that  the  "  Reg- 
ulars,"  who   are  anti-missionary,  are  the  true 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


159 


Baptists,  and  that  our  missionary  brethren  are 
only  offshoots  \  I  care  not  to  press  these  questions 
further.  I  am  sure  we  shall  not  be  able  to  decide 
them.  And  I  am  equally  sure  that  Orchard's 
bond  of  union,  which  is  that  of  the  Disciples,  and 
not  Baptistic  at  all,  will  continue  to  be  repudiated 
in  practice  by  all  these  Baptist  sects,  for  many 
years  to  come.  But,  in  any  event,  it  behooves 
such  Baptists  as  Prof.  Whitsitt  to  say  whom  he 
acknowledges  as  Baptists,  and  whom  he  repudi- 
ates as  heretics,  or  disorderly  "  offshoots."  And, 
especially,  it  behooves  him  to  show  why  the  reg- 
ular, or  Primitive  Baptists,  should  not  be  regarded 
as  in  the  true  line  of  succession  from  the  Baptist 
fathers,  and  himself  and  brethren  as  "  offshoots  " 
from  the  one  original  Baptistic  stem.  There  was 
a  time,  it  is  safe  to  say,  when  three-fourths  of  the 
Baptists  in  America  were  decidedly  opposed  to 
missionary  societies,  and  possibly,  to  all  that  is 
now  regarded  as  distinctively  missionary  work. 
This  must  not  be  forgotten. 

But,  if  the  question  of  origin  and  history  is  to 
be  brought  to  the  front,  then  the  Baptist  scribes 
will  have  their  hands  full  without  stopping  to 
utter  naughty  gibes  at  any  of  their  neighbors. 
Prof.  Whitsitt  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  Dis- 
ciples have  never  succeeded  as  Biblical  exegetes. 
^Yhat  truth  there  is  in  this  opinion  we  need  not 
stop  here  to  determine.  But  how  many  Baptists 
are  known  as  exegetes  of  distinction  in  the  great 


160 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


world  of  Christian  scholarship  to-day  ?  It  will  be 
time  enough  to  taunt  us  with  deficiency  in  this  re- 
spect, when  we  shall  have  had  the  length  of  time 
they  have  had,  and  shall  show  no  better  results. 
Old-fashioned  Baptist  text-preaching  is  hardly  to 
be  taken  as  a  phase  of  exegetics,  but  certainly  it 
furnishes  a  sort  of  test  of  Baptist  aptitude  for 
exegetical  work,  in  days  long  past.  The  writer  of 
this  review  has  heard  some  strange  sermons  from 
Baptist  pulpits  in  his  time.  One  preacher  took  as 
a  text  this  verse  of  Solomon's  Song  :  "  My  beloved 
is  gone  down  in  Ms  garden,  to  tlie  beds  o£  spices 
to  feed  in  the  gardens,  and  to  gather  lilies"  6:2. 
There  was  little  of  exegesis  in  this  case,  but  the 
preacher  found  a  stirring,  and,  for  those  days,  a 
thoroughly  characteristic  Baptist  sermon  in  his 
text.  There  are  Baptist  communities  to-day, 
which  would  be  transported  into  ecstasies  by  such 
a  sermon.  Another  took  this  text :  "  And  they 
called  Rebecca,  and  said  unto  her,  Wilt  thou  go 
with  this  man?  And  she  answered  and  said,  I 
will  go."  Gen.  24  :  58.  Into  this  simple  text — 
which  was  a  favorite  one  with  Baptists  in  those 
days — the  preacher  read  his  whole  theory  of  re- 
demption. Abraham's  servant  was  the  preacher 
of  the  gospel ;  Rebecca  was  the  sinner  ;  the  camel 
on  which  Rebecca  rode  was  the  law ;  when  Re- 
becca veiled  herself,  and  dismounted,  at  the  end 
of  the  journey,  the  preacher  saw  a  most  impres- 
sive type  of  a  sinner's  surrender  to  Christ,  after 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


161 


the  law  has  done  its  work  in  his  heart !  Oh,  no  ! 
It  was  not  exegesis,  certainly  ;  but  it  was  genuine 
Baptist  preaching,  of  the  most  popular  type,  at 
the  time  when  Alexander  Campbell  preached  his 
sermon  on  the  law  before  the  Redstone  Associa- 
tion. And  the  fact  that  the  sermon  dealt  a  death- 
blow to  such  preaching  was  doubtless  the  reason 
why  the  Redstone  leaders  saw  heresy  in  it!  The 
Baptist  scribe  who  knows  Baptist  history,  will  be 
a  little  chary  of  reproaches  which  may  provoke 
even  the  most  good-natured  retort  along  these 
lines.  There  never  has  been  a  time  in  the  history 
of  the  Disciples  when  their  ministry  would  not 
compare  favorably,  in  every  respect,  with  that  of 
any  Baptist  party.  This  is  not  boasting,  but  a 
simple  fact  of  history  ;  which,  however,  would  not 
have  been  mentioned,  if  the  case  had  not  seemed 
to  require  it. 

But  the  "  origin"  of  the  Baptists  !  What  spec- 
ial cause  of  gratulation  can  Baptists  find  in  it? 
Of  course  our  American  Baptists  are  sprung,  for 
the  most  part,  from  English  sources.  What,  then, 
was  the  origin  of  the  English  Baptists  ?  In  a 
brilliant  article  on  Baptist  Theology,  printed  first 
in  the  Contemporary  Review,  and  afterwards 
copied  into  the  Library  Magazine  for  June,  1888. 
Dr.  Clifford  of  England  informs  us  that  the  first 
church  of  General  Baptists  in  England  was 
founded  in,  or  about,  1611,  by  John  Smyth  and 
Thomas  Helwyss.    "Besides  the  idea  of  the  spir- 


162 


OEIGIN  OF  THE 


itual  life,  they  also  preached  the  doctrine  of  gen- 
eral redemption."  "  Twenty  years  afterward," 
continues  Br.  Clifford,  "  and  on  the  12th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1633,  another  Baptist  Church  of  a  differ- 
ent type  was  created  at  Wopping  by  secession 
from  the  Independent  Church,  dating  back  to  1616. 
Its  pastor  was  John  Spillsbury,  and  its  theology 
was  fashioned  on  the  model  of  that  marvelous 
piece  of  doctrinal  literature,  the  Institutes  of  John 
Calvin."  From  these  beginnings  have  sprung, 
directly,  or  indirectly,  all  the  Baptists  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States.  But  did  John 
Smyth  baptize  himself?  I  can  not  tell.  His 
Pedobaptist  opponents  said  that  he  did,  but  that 
may  have  been  prejudice  and  persecution.  The 
Lord  knows  what  the  truth  is.  Perhaps  the  world 
will  never  know.  And  the  Particular  Baptist 
church  of  which  Spillsbury  was  pastor — whence 
did  that  derive  the  scriptural  baptism  ?  The  ques- 
tion can  not  be  certainly  answered.  Benedict 
(History  of  the  Baptists,  P.  337)  admits  that  much 
obscurity  hangs  over  the  whole  matter.  He  says  : 
"  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  some  obscurity 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  ancient  im- 
mersion of  adults,  which  appears  to  have  been 
discontinued,  was  restored,  when,  after  the  long 
night  of  anti-Christian  apostasy,  persons  were  at 
first  baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith."  This 
remark  is  made  in  connection  with  the  Particular 
Baptists.     But    concerning  the  Smyth-Helwyss 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


163 


foundation  of  General  Baptists,  he  confesses  the 
same  uncertainty.  Smyth,  after  embracing  Bap- 
tist sentiments,  had  fled  to  Holland  to  escape  per- 
secution. Now,  there  were  Baptist  churches  in 
Holland,  but  they  were  as  "fantastic-'  a  set  of 
people  as  any  seeker  after  queer  social  and  relig- 
ious phenomena  could  wish  to  see.  "  The  foreign 
anabaptists,"  says  Crosby,  "  were  such  as  denied 
Christ's  having  taken  the  flesh  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  the  lawfulness  of  magistracy,  and  such 
like,  which  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  followers  looked  on 
as  great  errors  ;  so  that  they  could  not  be  thought 
by  him  proper  administrators  of  baptism." 

Upon  the  whole,  Benedict  thinks  that  Smyth 
and  his  followers  "first  formed  themselves  into  a 
church,  and  then  appointed  two  of  their  number 
(perhaps  Mr.  Smyth  and  Mr.  Helwyss)  to  baptize 
the  rest."  He  adds,  with  evident  feeling,  that 
"this  subject  caused  considerable  uneasiness  and 
reproach  to  the  first  Baptists  after  the  Reforma- 
toin,  both  general  and  particular."  The  rise  of 
the  whole  Baptist  denomination  in  England  and 
America,  in  this  irregular  way,  seems  to  be  pretty 
well  assured,  and  if  "  origin  "  is  the  question,  then 
they  are  the  last  people  in  this  country  who  ought 
to  begin  throwing  stones  at  others.  Of  course, 
the  case  of  Roger  Williams  and  his  Rhode  Island 
Baptist  church  is  well  known.  The  Baptists 
ought  not  to  press  questions  of  "origin"  too  zeal- 
ously, if  they  do  not  wish  to  hear  these  things  re- 


164 


OEIGIN  OF  THE 


ferred  to  as  a  part  of  their  ecclesiastical  inherit- 
ance. 

But  the  Scottish-  Baptists,  so  zealously  traduced 
by  Mr.  Whitsitt,  were  a  theologically  respectable 
people,  on  any  showing,  compared  with  the 
English  Baptists  before  Fuller's  day.  Listen  to 
this  Baptist  witness  :  "  The  prevailing  system  of 
doctrine  among  the  Baptist  churches  at  this  period 
was  ultra  Calvinism — a  system  which  denies  true 
faith  to  be  the  duty  of  every  one  to  whom  the  gos- 
pel comes  ;  which  consequently  must  paralyze  the 
efforts  of  ministers  '  to  go  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature';  commanding 
all  men  everywhere  to  repent,  at  the  peril  of  their 
souls."  Fuller's  first,  if  not  his  greatest  work, 
was  to  demolish  this  prevalent  and  mischievous 
anti-nomianism,  as  Dr.  Clifford  styles  it.  Here 
Fuller  and  the  Scotch  Baptists  were  one,  though 
they  reached  the  same  goal  by  different  routes. 
If  one  takes  the  history  of  the  numerous  Baptist 
sects,  and  traces  them  carefully  through  all 
changes  and  metamorphoses,  he  will  find  no  great 
reason  for  the  indulgence  of  that  spirit  of  self-suf- 
ficiency and  exclusivism,  which  so  markedly  char- 
acterizes certain  Baptist  leaders  of  our  time.  To 
barely  hint  at  these  things,  is  all  that  is  possible 
in  this  review.  One  may  well  hesitate  to  disa- 
gree with  Dr.  Jno.  Duncan,  who  says,  as  quoted 
by  Dr.  Clifford:  ''There  is  only  one  real  heresy. 
Antinomianism."    The  reproach  of  this  heresy, 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


165 


"both  in  England  and  America,  the  Baptists  must 
be  content  to  bear,  beyond  any  other  people.  If 
they  are  now  happily  freed  from  its  blighting  in- 
fluence, they  are  to  be  sincerely  congratulated  by 
all  good  men.  It  is  only  admissible  to  remind 
them  of  these  things  in  order  to  keep  them  hum- 
ble, and  prevent  them  from  putting  on  airs  which 
make  them  ridiculous.  If  they  will  behave  them- 
selves hereafter,  we  do  not  care  to  reproach  them 
with  the  past.  May  the  dear  Lord  lead  them  into 
all  truth,  in  his  own  time,  and  in  his  own  way! 


166 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


CHAPTER  Vm. 

THE  RELATION  OF  THE  DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST  TO 
ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL  AND  OTHER 
LEADERS. 

The  Disciples  cheerfully  acknowledge  a  debt  of 
gratitude  to  the  Campbells,  and  other  able  and 
excellent  men,  who  led  in  the  work  of  reformation 
in  the  earlier  years  of  this  century.  Nor  do  they 
deny  their  indebtedness  to  all  the  reformers,  Bap- 
tists and  Pedobaptists,  of  whatever  schools  of 
thought.  Scarcely  a  great  man  has  lived,  and 
wrought  for  God,  whose  labors  have  not  shed  light 
on  some  of  the  questions  which  interest  all 
thoughtful  men.  The  true  disciple  is  thankful  for 
such  help,  let  it  come  from  what  source  it  may. 
All  the  men  who  have  sought  and  found  truth  we 
reckon  among  our  spiritual  ancestors,  although  we 
may  reject  many  of  their  formulas.  The  progress 
from  the  great  apostasy  has  been  slow  and  toil- 
some. Those  who,  from  time  to  time,  have  at- 
tained, under  God,  to  the  largest  measures  of  di- 
vine reality,  have  been  our  greatest  benefactors, 
and  constitute  the  true  succession  of  reformers, 
from  Wyckliffe  down  to  our  own  day.  We  agree 
heartily  with  Dr.  Clifford,  when  he  states  the 
progress  of  reformation  as  follows : 

"The  all-absorbing  question  of  the  16th  century 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


167 


was  this — what  is  the  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  what  persons  ought  it  to  consist? 
Protestantism  was  the  bold  rejection  of  the  estab- 
lished and  orthodox  answer  supplied  by  Roman- 
ism to  this  inquiry ;  Puritanism  qualified  and 
cleansed  the  answer  of  Protestantism;  Separatism 
went  further,  and  gave  increased  sharpness  to  the 
answer  urged  by  the  Puritans ;  the  Brownists,  or 
Independents,  still  on  the  forward  march,  elim- 
inated the  parochial  element  from  church  member- 
ship, and  insisted  on  the  possession  of  spiritual 
life.  Then  came  the  Baptists  and  added  the  obli- 
gation of  developing  the  spiritual  life  into  avoioed 
consciousness  before  admission  into  the  church. 
And  inasmuch  as  the  only  mode  of  conscientious 
speech  known  in  those  days  was  that  of  separa- 
tion from  those  with  whom  they  differed,  away 
they  went,  carrying  whatever  theology  they  had 
inherited  to  their  new  ecclesiastical  home." 

To  complete  this  statement,  and  bring  down  the 
succession  to  the  present  day,  it  remains  to  be 
said,  that  the  Disciples  have  added  to  whatever  of 
truth  the  above  named  parties  had  found,  the 
scriptural  basis  of  fellowship  and  ecclesiastical 
unity,  and  also  given  an  answer  to  the  question  of 
personal  salvation  surpassing  in  clearness  and 
fullness,  both  of  biblical  proof  and  rational  expo- 
sition, anything  known  in  history  since  the  apos- 
tles of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  went  home  to  glory. 

And  for  myself,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that 


168 


OKIGTN  OF  THE 


of  this  final  advance.  I  think,  there  is  no  reasona- 
ble doubt,  and  that  the  step  thus  taken  by  the 
Disciples  is  the  longest  and  best  single  step  since 
Luther,  in  the  whole  series  of  reformation  move- 
ments. The  true  law  of  ecclesiastic  affiliation — 
namely,  the  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  his 
commandments — and  the  great  question  of  per 
sonal  salvation — ';what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved?' 
— cleared  of  all  irrelevant  and  unscriptural  issues^ 
and  alike  of  all  mystic  and  superstitious  fantasies 
— this  is  the  claim  of  the  Disciples  before  the 
world  of  our  day,  a  claim  for  which,  if  just,  we 
can  afford  to  toil,  and,  if  need  be,  to  suffer,  till 
the  Lord  shall  come.  We  seek  not  to  disparage 
the  work  of  others,  but  with  our  own  mission  we 
are  quite  content.  If  the  Lord  shall  enable  us  to 
be  faithful  to  it,  in  our  day  and  generation,  what 
more  need  we  desire  ?  Let  us  be  satisfied  and 
thankful. 

But  what  is  our  true  relation  to  the  great  and 
good  men  to  whom  we  so  cheerfully  acknowledge 
our  special  indebtedness  ?  This  is  a  question  of 
no  mean  significance  in  estimating  the  value  of 
our  distinctive  plea.  It  is  a  question,  too,  the 
right  answer  to  which  it  seems  very  hard  to  make 
clear  to  our  brethren  in  the  various  denomina- 
tional folds.  They  will  pardon  us,  I  trust,  for 
holding  very  emphatically  that  the  fault  is  not  on 
our  side,  or  in  the  cause  we  plead.  When  Luther 
completed  his  work,  he  had  not  only  succeeded  in 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


169 


impressing  his  personal  modes  of  thought  and  ex- 
perience upon  his  contemporaries,  who  followed 
immediately  in  his  movement,  but  he  had  taken 
care  that  these  modes  of  thought,  this  mould  of 
religious  experience,  should  be  perpetuated  indefi- 
nitely, if  possible,  to  the  very  end  of  time.  He 
had  bravely  rejected  the  Papal  traditions,  but  he 
seemed  not  at  all  averse  to  imposing  upon  his  suc- 
cessors, in  all  the  time  to  come,  his  own  traditions. 
Grant  that  he  thought  his  theological  ideas  identi- 
cal, for  substance,  with  the  original  gospel,  and 
that  does  not  at  all  change  the  fact.  He  left  an 
ecclesiastical  organism  pledged  to  the  mainte- 
nance of  these  theological  ideas,  and  fully 
equipped  for  the  perpetuation  of  its  own  existence 
without  limit  as  to  duration.  Nothing  short  of  an 
ecclesiastical  revolution,  similar  to  that  which  he 
had  led  against  Rome,  could  ever  make  the  church 
which  he  may  be  said  to  have  founded,  anything 
more  or  better  than  "  The  Lutheran  Church."  Its 
symbolism  was  Lutheran  throughout,  and  Luther's 
articles  were  bound  upon  the  consciences  of  his 
followers,  if  not  in  secula  seculorum,  at  least  to 
the  end  of  this  present  world.  Luther,  it  is  clear, 
intended  to  found  a  church  to  perpetuate  his  own 
ideas.  Doubtless  he  believed  these  ideas  to  be, 
only  in  another  shape,  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ, 
but,  as  was  said  a  moment  ago,  that  does  not  alter 
the  fact.  Luther's  church  was  intended  to  reflect 
forever  Luther's  conception  of  the  Christian  relig- 


170 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


ion.  The  Lutheran  articles  are  bound  upon  its 
conscience  to-day. 

Now  what  is  here  said  of  Luther  is  manifestly 
just  as  true  of  Calvin  and  Wesley.  Calvinian 
articles  constitute  the  doctrinal  basis,  the  ecclesi- 
astical organic  law  and  bond  of  union,  of  every 
Calvinistic  church  on  earth — Presbyterian.  Puritan 
and  Baptist,  alike.  As  for  Wesle}-,  there  is  no 
power  in  the  church  he  founded  to  make  the 
slightest  change  in  the  "  articles  of  religion" 
which  he  fastened  irrevocably  upon  it.  Changes 
of  an  "  economical  "  character  may  be  made  by  a 
general  conference,  but  it  has  no  right  to — it  dare 
not — touch  a  single  article  of  the  TTesleyan  faith. 
These  facts  sjjeak  volumes  on  the  question  for  the 
moment  before  us.  Let  no  reader  stop  till  he  sees 
clearly  their  whole  meaning;  otherwise,  the  dif- 
ferentiation we  are  seeking  to  effect  will  not 
clearly  appear.  But  concerning  Baptists  and 
other  congregational  communities,  it  is  proper  to 
say  that  there  has  ever  been  a  measure  of  relaxa- 
tion from  the  bondage  of  confessional  authority, 
and  yet  not  that  genuine  freedom  in  Christ  which 
suffices  to  take  them  out  of  the  general  category 
to  which  I  have  here  assigned  them.  In  the 
briefer  and  less  rigid  epitomes  of  doctrine  adorjted 
by  Baptist  churches  and  associations,  the  distinc- 
tive ideas  and  traditions  of  the  Baptist  fathers  of 
different  schools  are  still  more  or  less  faithfully 
perpetuated. 


DISCIPLES  OF  CTlklST. 


171 


As  respects  the  Disciples,  however,  the  case  is 
very  different.  The  first  thing  in  onr  movement 
was  to  secure  freedom,  for  all  time,  from  the 
tyranny  of  mere  confessional  authority.  The  first 
number  of  The  Christian  Baptist  bore  at  the 
front  the  flag  of  Christian  freedom.  At  the  head 
of  its  first  page  was  inscribed  this  motto  : 
"Style  no  man  on  earth  your  Father ;  for  he 
alone  is  your  Fattier  who  is  in  heaven;  and  all  ye 
are  brethren.  Assume  not  the  title  of  Rabbi ; 
for  you  have  only  one  Teacher ;  neither  assume 
the  title  of  Leader;  for  you  have  only  one  Leader, 
the  Messiah" 

This  motto  sounded  the  key-note  of  our  reforma- 
tion. In  the  mouth  of  Mr.  Campbell  these  words 
were  not  the  expression  of  an  aggressive  and  de- 
fiant individualism.  Mr.  C.  was  indeed,  from  the 
beginning  of  his  public  career,  an  independent 
thinker  and  a  fearless  proclaimer  of  his  assured 
convictions.  But  no  man  felt  more  profoundly 
than  he  the  need  of  mutual  toleration  and  respect, 
in  order  to  the  maintenance  of  spiritual  unity, 
and  a  catholic  fellowship  in  the  congregations  of 
the  living  God.  What  he  asserted  for  himself  he 
accorded  freely  and  unhesitatingly  to  the  hum- 
blest disciple  in  the  ranks.  The  chosen  motto  was 
not  for  himself  only,  but  for  all.  "Where  the 
Bible  speaks  he  would  speak,  where  the  Bible  was 
silent  he  would  be  silent,"  as  to  authoritative  ut- 
terance.   Nothing  should  be  made  a  test  of  fel- 


172 


ORIGIN  OF  TTIK 


lowship  or  membership  which  could  not  be  sup- 
ported "by  exi^ress  precept  or  approved  prece- 
dent," taken  from  the  word  of  God,  and  applied 
in  its  proper  contextual  limitations.  The  follower 
of  the  dear  Lord  was  not  to  be  judged  on  account 
of  his  opinions  on  questions  of  "  doubtful  disputa- 
tion." He  recognized  the  right  of  untrammelled 
inquiry,  but  maintained  a  broad  difference  be- 
tween the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  having  for  its 
content  the  way  of  salvation,  and  the  uncertain 
deductions  which  constitute  the  formulas  of  sys- 
tematic theology  in  all  the  widely  conflicting 
schools.  What  Christ  has  bound  upon  the  human 
soul,  in  order  to  its  salvation,  must  be  loosed  by 
no  human  hand.  But  this  binding  is  either  in  ex- 
press precept  or  good  and  valid  precedent.  A 
condition  of  salvation  is  never  an  inference.  The 
facts  about  Christ,  the  faith  in  Christ,  the  obedi- 
ence to  Christ,  the  blessings  and  franchises  en- 
joyed through  Christ — these  are  the  topics  of  the 
gospel  of  redemption.  He  allowed  to  theory  its 
proper  place,  as  the  attempt  of  the  human  mind 
to  explain  rationally  the  facts  and  commandments 
of  the  gospel,  but  he  sternly  denied  the  right  of 
any  disciple  to  force  his  personal  explanation  on 
the  conscience  of  another.  It  was  a  characteristic 
utterance,  when  he  once  affirmed,  "  God  never 
saved  a  man  for  believing  a  theory,  or  damned  a 
man  for  disbelieving  one."  In  the  field  of  relig- 
ious philosophy  the  soul  is  free,  but  this  Christian 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST, 


173 


freedom  is  not  to  run  into  license  in  speculation, 
any  more  than  in  the  corresponding  department  of 
conduct  or  life.  It  is  easy  to  darken  counsel  by 
words  without  knowledge.  Unbridled  speculation 
is,  and  always  has  been,  an  evil  of  great  magni- 
tude in  the  church  of  God.  We  are  indeed  free  to 
think,  but  wisdom  in  the  expression  of  our 
thought  is  a  true  test  of  usefulness  in  a  disciple 
of  Jesus  Christ.  So  one  may  theorize — for  how 
can  a  thinking  man  keep  quite  clear  of  theory  ? — 
but  his  theories  are  mainly  for  himself,  and  must 
not  be  bound  on  other  people  as  a  test  of  fellow- 
ship, or  membership  in  a  Christian  church.  These 
fundamental  distinctions  were  made  clear  in  the 
early  years  of  our  reformatory  movement,  and  its 
whole  subsequent  history  has  been  shaped  by 
their  influence. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  Mr.  Campbell  never 
thought  of  founding  a  community  to  reflect  and 
perpetuate  his  own  theological  opinions.  He  fast- 
ened his  opinions  upon  no  one,  in  any  way.  In 
the  department  of  opinion,  of  theology,  he  left 
even'  man  as  free  as  Christ  had  left  him,  and 
bravely  insisted  that  none  should  be  permitted  to 
destroy  or  abridge  that  freedom.  When  he  rested 
from  his  labors,  there  was  not  a  single  individual, 
or  church,  on  earth,  in  any  wise  pledged  to  any 
theory  or  interpretation  which  he  had  held  and 
promulgated  by  word  or  pen.  The  Disciples,  his 
brethren,  acknowledged  and  do  acknowledge  no 


174 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


leader,  in  the  sense  of  the  above-quoted  motto, 
but  the  Lord  Messiah.  They  have  never  been 
pledged  to  anything  but  the  revealed  truth  of  God, 
as  each  single  soul  finds  it  for  himself,  through 
whatever  helping  instrumentalities,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Truth 
only  has  authority.  Truth  is  eternal  reality,  as 
God  sees  it,  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Spirit.  The 
soul  of  man  is  bound  to  this  truth,  and  to  nought 
besides.  It  is  bound  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  be- 
cause they  contain  this  truth.  It  is  bound  to 
Christ,  who  is  the  truth,  and  to  his  word,  whether 
spoken  by  himself  or  others  as  the  expression  of 
that  truth  for  the  authoritative  direction  of  human 
life.  That  which  is  the  substance  and  essence  of 
Christianity,  the  facts  concerning  Christ,  the  sin- 
cere and  intelligent  belief  of  these  facts,  the  rev- 
erent trust  in  Christ  superinduced  through  this 
belief,  the  new  life  of  the  soul  divinely  inbreathed 
by  means  of  this  belief  and  trust,  the  expression 
of  this  life  in  all  piety  Godward,  and  in  all  phil- 
anthropy man  ward — these  are  the  things  to  which 
we  are  committed  as  a  religious  community,  be- 
cause these  are  the  things  bound  upon  us  by  the 
Head  of  the  church,  our  Savior  and  Lord.  To  de- 
mand more  than  this,  is  to  become  a  sect ;  to  de- 
mand less,  is  to  cease  to  be  Christian.  So  under- 
stand the  matter  all  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  and 
so  have  they  ever  understood  it  from  Alexander 
Campbell  down  to  him  whose  pen  traces  these 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


175 


words.  In  these  things,  our  indebtedness  to  Mr. 
Campbell,  under  God,  is  very  great,  and  is  most 
cheerfully  acknowledged.  Further  than  these 
things  we  are  not  bound. 

Mr.  Campbell  was  a  voluminous  writer,  but  as 
editor  of  a  religious  periodical,  rather  than  a 
maker  of  books.  He  became  an  editor  early  in 
his  public  career.  His  conception  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  was  a  growth.  Like  every  other  re- 
former, in  cutting  loose  from  the  prescriptions  of 
accepted  creeds,  he  had  to  trace  anew  the  great 
lines  of  Christian  truth  for  himself.  He  says  of  his 
progress,  that  it  "was  gradual  as  the  dawn."  The 
great  outlines,  once  distinctly  grasped,  had  to  be 
wrought  out  in  detail  patiently.  What  he 
thought  and  said  at  one  time  was  not  always 
strictly  consistent  with  what  he  said  at  another. 
It  is  not  a  pleasant  thing  to  confess  one's  mistakes, 
and  though  Mr.  Campbell  never,  so  far  as  the 
writer  knows,  said  of  any  particular  sentence  he 
had  written;  "This  was  a  mistake;"  yet  here- 
vised  his  work  so  often,  and  surveyed  the  ques- 
tions concerning  which  he  wrote,  from  so  many 
different  points  of  view,  that  it  is  easy  enough 
now  to  separate  his  mature  and  final  utterances 
from  those  which  were  tentative,  and  intended  to 
be  accepted  as  provisional  in  their  character. 
For  instance,  Mr.  C.  said  some  things  in  the  Chris- 
tian Baptist  against  Missionary,  and  even  Bible 
Societies,  which,  at  a  later  period,  we  positively 


176 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


know  lie  would  not  have  said.  In  his  celebrated 
Extras  on  remission  and  regeneration,  he  ex- 
pressed his  views  incautiously,  and  so  as  to  do 
himself  injustice,  even  if  we  grant  that  the  posi- 
tion he  intended  to  maintain  was,  for  substance, 
the  true  one.  So,  also,  in  the  dialogue  of  Timothy 
and  Austin  on  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he 
exposed  himself  not  only  to  misrepresentation  but 
even  to  honest  misapprehension  upon  the  part  of 
many  persons  by  whom  he  sincerely  desired  to  be 
correctly  understood.  It  seems  only  the  part  of 
candor  to  say  these  things  now,  when  the  battle  is 
over,  and  the  smoke  of  the  conflict  passing  away. 

But  one  can  have  little  patience  with  the  whole- 
sale misrepresentations  which,  in  certain  quarters, 
arose  over  these  matters,  and  the  obstinate  unwill- 
ingness to  be  set  right  in  regard  to  them,  which 
was  long  persisted  in  by  many  fairly  good  men. 
If  it  can  not  be  set  down  to  the  account  of  inevita- 
ble human  weakness,  then  no  excuse  can  be  made 
for  it. 

But  the  point  is  this  :  No  man  among  the  Dis- 
ciples is  in  any  wise  bound  to  defend  any  position 
of  Mr.  Campbell's  which  he  may  honestly  regard 
as  untenable.  Nor  are  our  children  trained  in 
catechisms  which  imply  their  correctness,  and  so 
forestall  the  honest,  independent  judgment,  to 
which  their  own  investigations  might  lead  them  in 
their  maturer  years.  We  have  no  articles  of  faith 
shaped  for  us  by  Mr.  Campbell,  or  any  other  unin- 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST. 


177 


spired  man.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  not 
one  of  us  who  does  not  exercise  the  freedom, 
which  is  our  heritage,  to  the  fullest  extent  which 
sincere  and  reverent  personal  investigation  may 
seem  to  demand.  Our  relation  to  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  our  other  great  men,  is  not  at  all  that  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  to  Luther,  of  the  Calvinian 
churches  to  Calvin,  or  of  the  Methodist  churches 
to  John  Wesley.  This  fact  is  now  plain  beyond 
honest — shall  I  say  ? — denial.  Hence,  it  concerns 
us  not  in  the  least  to  know  from  whom  Mr.  Camp- 
bell may  have  learned  this  or  that  item  in  his  the- 
ological system,  or  whether  Sandeman  and 
M  '  Lean  were  the  real  founders  of  the  movement, 
which,  in  this  country,  has  been  generally  con- 
nected with  his  name  by  those  who  oppose  it. 
Our  only  concern  is  to  know  if  it  is,  primarily, 
from  God.  If  so  we  are  satisfied.  Short  of  this 
there  is  no  resting-place  to  us ;  beyond  this  we 
have  not  the  least  wish  to  go. 

And  yet,  as  we  understand  it,  our  obligations  to 
Mr.  Campbell  are  such  that  his  good  name  is  a 
matter  of  some  concern  to  us.  We  owe  him,  un- 
der God,  as  we  feel,  a  great  debt,  and  we  should 
not  be  true  to  our  manhood,  if  we  failed  to  repel 
the  unfounded  assertions  of  any  one  who  seeks  to 
darken  with  dishonor  his  grand  life.  Some  one 
once  said,  "  How  can  you  reply  to  a  sneer  ?  "  Ah ! 
indeed !  that  has  been  my  only  difficuly  in  this 
review.    Prof.  Whitsitt's  words  of  criticism  and 


178 


OEIGIN  OF  THE 


argument  have  been  easily  met.  But  there  is 
more  in  his  book — or  I  am  much  mistaken — than 
the  words  which  convey  his  strictures  upon  Mr. 
Campbell  and  the  Disciples.  There  is  the  out- 
breathing  of  a  spirit,  the  effluence  of  a  personality 
— not  an  "  aureole,"  for  that  is  from  without,  and 
suggests  saintly  sanctity,  but  an  efflux,  an  emana- 
tion, which  comes  from  within,  and  reveals  the 
moods  of  the  soul  which  sends  it  forth ;  and  this 
is  what  has  been  hard  to  reply  to  in  a  way  to 
realize  my  ideal  of  what  a  review  should  be.  I 
have  sincerely  desired  to  be  just.  I  should  scorn 
to  impute  motives,  in  any  case,  less  worthy  than 
the  rea'  ones.  But  I  have  been  unable  in  reading 
Prof.  Whitsitt's  little  volume  to  escape  this 
malodorous  presence  for  many  moments  together. 
The  bitter  curl  of  the  author's  lip,  the  sardonic 
smile,  the  alternating  scowl,  "the  slow-moving" 
index  finger — these  have  kept  themselves  con- 
stantly before  my  mind's  eye.  If  I  have  spoken 
any  word  "  unadvisedly,"  if  any  expression 
stronger  than  truth  required  has  at  any  time  es- 
caped me,  then  this  sinister,  impalpable  "  geist," 
which  has  constantly  confronted  me  with  its  pres- 
ence, is  altogether  to  blame  for  it. 

But  I  must  repeat  the  fact  that  the  Disciples  are 
in  no  wise  bound  to  any  of  Mr.  Campbell's  opin- 
ions, interpretations,  or  reasonings.  Neither  does 
our  respect  for  him  sensibly  influence  us  in  our 
search  for  truth  in  the  Word  of  God.    Our  only 


DISCIPLES  OF  OHRIST. 


179 


quest  is  truth.  Our  practical  aim  is  the  glory  of 
God.  In  the  spirit  of  true  disciples  of  the  Master, 
we  would  seek  the  enlightenment  and  salvation  of 
men.  In  all  these  things  we  are  precisely  as  free 
as  we  should  have  been  if  Mr.  Campbell  had 
never  lived.  In  a  sense,  Mr.  Campbell  was  a  great 
leader  in  our  movement,  but  he  has  done  what  no 
other  reformer  ever  did,  he  has  left  us  our  whole 
freedom  in  Christ,  nay,  he  has  eloquently  and 
earnestly  besought  us  to  maintain  this  freedom, 
steadfast  to  the  end.  Our  fealty  is  due  to  Christ. 
And  if,  in  the  progress  of  knowledge,  the  pursuit 
of  truth  should  lead  us  quite  away  from  some  of 
the  chief  land-marks  of  our  early  historji,  there  is 
nothing  under  heaven  to  hold  us  back.  We  are 
pledged  only  to  the  faith  in  Christ  which  saves 
the  soul,  and  that  expression  of  this  faith  in  the 
life,  which  makes  salvation  an  assured  possession, 
according  to  the  word  of  our  God.  We  can  not 
forsake  this  and  be  Christian  ;  we  can  not  add  to 
this,  as  a  test  of  membership,  without  making 
ourselves  another  sect,  among  sects,  and  so  forfeit- 
ing our  birthright,  as  restorers  of  the  original  gos- 
pel. 

With  our  Baptist  brethren  we  have  no  unchris- 
tian quarrel.  If  they  fail  to  see  the  ineffable  dig- 
nity of  our  distinctive  position,  we  are  sorry 
enough  that  it  is  so,  but  we  shall  not,  I  trust,  fool- 
ishly abuse  them  for  it.  They  will  see  it  in  the 
Lord's  own  good  time.    It  is  as  true  now  as  it  ever 


180 


ORIGIN  OF  THE 


was,  that  only  they  can  come  to  Christ,  or  to 
larger  measures  of  the  truth  of  Christ,  who  are 
drawn  by  the  Father,  and  come  because  they  are 
drawn.  We  earnestly  desire  to  live  in  kindliest 
relations  with  the  Baptists  of  all  schools,  and  will 
so  live,  if  they  will  only  let  us.  But  let  them  not 
delude  themselves  as  to  the  reason  that  impels  us 
to  seek  pleasant  relations  with  them.  We  care  as 
little  for  their  indorsement  as  they  can  possibly 
care  for  ours.  We  know  that  we  have  the  advan- 
tage of  them  before  earth  and  heaven.  We  have 
moved  on  before  them,  in  the  grand  march  of 
human  souls  away  from  the  superstitions  and  fan- 
tasies which  yet  survive  the  long  spiritual  night 
of  the  world,  in  which  they  had  their  birth.  As 
men  disengage  themselves,  more  and  more,  from 
these  unhappy  survivals,  the  growth  and  power  of 
our  movement  is  bound  to  increase.  If  God  so 
wills,  we  can  afford  to  wait  for  the  better  day 
which  is  sure  to  come.  And  we  can  do  without 
anybody's  recognition,  meantime,  that  gives  it  not 
at  all,  or  only  grudgingly.  But  our  broad,  divine 
plea  compels  us  to  hold  our  arms  open  for  brother- 
hood and  fellowship  with  those  who  sincerely  love 
and  serve  our  Lord,  whether  they  see  very  clearly 
the  genius  of  the  common  faith  or  not.  It  is  not 
for  us,  who  providentially  occupy  the  vanguard  of 
the  Lord's  moving  hosts,  to  withhold  our  love  from 
those  who  would  fall  into  line  with  us,  if  they 
only  saw  clearly  that  they  ought  to  do  it.  To 


DISCIPLES  OF  CHRIST.  181 

speak  boldly  the  truth  which  God  has  given  us  in 
charge,  and  to  lovingly  and  patiently  wait  for  its 
final  triumph  is  our  bounden  duty.  The  blessing 
of  the  Lord  God  Almighty  upon  every  soul  that 
sincerely  loves  Jesus  and  seeks  to  follow  in  his 
footsteps. 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A. 

The  following  extracts  from  an  article  by  Dr. 
Henry  C.  Vedder,  published  in  the  number  for 
July,  1888,  of  the  Baptist  Quarterly  Review,  will 
be  a  read  with  interest,  as  an  expression  of  Bap- 
tist opinion : 

"Dr.  Whitsitt  begins  by  stating  his  thesis  as 
follows :  '  The  Disciples  of  Christ,  commonly 
called  Campbellites  from  the  name  of  their 
founder,  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  of  Bethany, 
West  Virginia,  are  an  offshoot  of  the  Sandeman- 
ian  sect  of  Scotland.'  The  value  of  this  study  of 
the  sources  from  which  the  peculiar  tenets  and 
customs  of  the  Disciples  were  drawn,  so  far  as 
they  were  drawn  mediately  from  other  Christians 
and  not  immediately  from  the  Scriptures,  does  not 
depend  in  the  least  upon  the  establishment  of  this 
proposition.  This  is  fortunate,  for  it  does  not 
seem  that  the  author  has  proved  his  thesis." 

"In  the  first  place,  the  term  'offshoot'  in  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  thesis  does  not  seem  to  be  very  fortu- 
nately chosen.  It  seems  to  imply"  (does  it  not 
unqualifiedly  and  absolutely  imply?)  "that  there 

(183) 


184 


APPENDIX. 


was  an  organic  connection  between  the  Sandeman- 
ian  sect  and  the  Disciples.  This  is  by  no  means 
the  case." 

"Thomas  Campbell  ^ame  to  this  country  in 
1807,  a  minister  of  the  Seceders'  Church,  in  full 
fellowship.  Alexander  Campbell,  up  to  the  time 
of  his  leaving  Scotland,  was  also  in  full  fellowship 
with  this  body,  although  in  heart  he  had  ceased 
to  hold  its  doctrines,  or  to  sympathize  with  its 
practice.  He  had  spent  some  time,  while  a  stud- 
ent at  the  University  of  Glasgow,  in  the  society 
of  Greville  Ewing,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  San- 
demanian  sect,  and  had  been  strongly  influenced 
by  the  peculiar  notions  of  this  able  and  eccentric 
divine.  Many  of  these  notions  were  afterwards 
worked  out  in  the  Reformation.  His  obligations 
to  Ewing,  and  to  the  writings  of  Glas  and  San- 
deman,  Alexander  Campbell  never  denied  or  con- 
cealed. He  did  not  profess  that  his  teachings 
were  original.  He  only  claimed  that  they  were 
true.  'I  am,'  said  he,  ' greatly  indebted  to  all 
the  reformers,  from  Martin  Luther  down  to  John 
Wesley.  I  could  not  enumerate  or  particularize 
the  individuals,  living  and  dead,  who  have  as- 
sisted in  forming  my  mind.  If  all  the  Hebrew, 
Greek,  Roman,  Persian,  French,  English,  Irish, 
Scotch,  and  American  teachers  and  authors  were 
to  demand  their  own  from  me,  I  do  not  know 
that  I  would  have  two  mites  to  buy  incense  to 


APPENDIX. 


185 


offer  upon  the  altar  to  my  genius  of  originality  for 

the  honors  vouchsafed  me.' 

********* 

"  This  brief  outline  of  facts  is  sufficient  to  show 
that,  so  far  from  being  an  'offshoot'  of  the  San- 
demanian  sect  of  Scotland,  the  Disciples  are  so 
far  as  any  organic  connection  is  concerned,  an  off 
shoot  of  the  Baptist  denomination  of  the  United 
States.  It  might  easily  be  shown,  of  course,  that 
Alexander  Campbell  and  his  followers  were  noth- 
ing more  than  nominal  Baptists.  From  the  begin- 
ning they  were  never  in  sympathy  with  the  views 
of  truth  that  prevail  among  Baptist  churches,  but 
the  fact  is  indisputable  that  they  were  in  organic 
union  with  the  Baptists  until  that  union  was  dis- 
solved by  the  Baptist  associations  and  Baptist 
churches  withdrawing  fellowship  from  them. 

"The  utmost,  then,  that  Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis  can* 
mean  is,  that  in  spirit,  in  doctrine  and  in  church 
order  the  Disciples  have  drawn  more  largely  from 
the  Sandemanians  than  from  any  other  body  of 
Christians. 

********* 

"In  Chapter  II,  of  his  little  book  he  gives  fif- 
teen particulars  of  Sandemanian  doctrines  and 
practices,  as  follows : 

"1.    A  plurality  of  elders  in  each  church. 

"2.  A  weekly  observance  of  the  LoroVs  Sup- 
per. 

"3.    The    supporting  of  themselves    by  the 


186 


APPENDIX. 


elders  in  some  trade  or  profession  outside  of  the 
ministry. 

"4.  The  observance  of  love  feasts  such  as  pre- 
vailed in  the  early  Christian  Church. 

"5.  The  kiss  of  charity  as  enjoined  in  the 
apostolic  letters. 

"6.    Feet-washing  as  a  church  ordinance. 

"7.    Abstinence  from  eating  blood. 

"8.  The  necessity  of  absolute  unanimity  on 
the  part  of  the  various  members  in  every  transac- 
tion by  an  individual  church. 

"9.  A  modified  communism,  the  personal  es- 
tate of  each  communicant  being  always  subject  to 
the  demand  of  the  necessitous,  especially  those  of 
the  household  of  faith. 

"10.  The  calling  of  the  weekly  collection  the 
fell  oic  ship. 

"11.  The  custom  of  mutual  exhortation  as 
a  regular  part  of  religious  worship. 

"12.    Non-practice  of  family  worship. 

"13.  The  absence  of  scruples  against  going  to 
the  theatre,  or  joining  in  the  dance,  or  other 
social  amusements  with  any,  even  with  irreligious 
people. 

"14.  The  exclusion  of  all  but  communi- 
cants FROM  THE  PUBLIC  SERVICES  OF  THE  CnURCH. 

"15.  The  refused  to  regard  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  a  Sabbath,  or  to  even  ccdl  it  by  that 
name. 

"Dr.  Whitsitt  compares  those  peculiarities  with 


APPENDIX. 


187 


the  teachings  of  Mr.  Campbell  and  the  practice  of 
the  Disciples  at  the  present  time,  with  this  curious 
result :  Of  the  fifteen  particulars  enumerated,  the 
Disciples  agree  with  the  Sandemanians  in  the  four 
printed  in  italics,  viz.,  numbers  1,  2,  10  and  15. 
The  Disciples  absolutely  disagree  with  the  Sande- 
manians in  the  nine  particulars  printed  in  ordi- 
nary type,  viz.,  numbers  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  12  and 
13;  and  two  cases  printed  in  small  capitals  (11 
and  14)  are  doubtful.    JErgo,  the  Disciples  are  an 

'offshoot'  of  the  Sandemanians! 

****       *       *       %  * 

"But  Dr.  Whitsitt,  in  spite  of  his  own  confes- 
sions to  the  contrary,  and  in  spite  of  facts  that 
cannot  be  denied,  persists  in  calling  the  Scotch 
Baptists,  Sandemanians — '  the  immersed  wing  of 
the  Sandemanian  fraternity,'  and  again,  '  the  im- 
mersed Sandemanians,'  and  similar  titles.  The 
more  reasonable  ground  would  seem  to  be  that, 
after  he  severed  his  relations  with  the  Sandeman- 
ian church  at  Glasgow,  Archibald  M '  Lean  was  no 
more  a  Sandemanian  than  Adoniram  Judson  con- 
tinued to  be  a  Congregationalist,  after  he  was 
baptized  at  Calcutta.  It  is  necessary,  however, 
for  Dr.  Whitsitt  to  maintain  his  views  of  M'Lean's 
continued  connection  with  the  Sandemanians,  be- 
cause otherwise  his  thesis  utterly  falls  to  the 
ground.  The  main  ideas  in  Alexander  Campbell's 
Reformation  were,  as  he  believes,  borrowed  from 
M'Lean,  especially  the  distinctive  and  peculiar 


188 


APPENDIX. 


doctrine  of  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins ;  but 
M '  Lean  was,  it  seems  plain,  a  Baptist  when  he 
wrote  his  Commission  of  Christ.  Dr.  Whitsitt's 
thesis  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Disciples  is  in  the 
predicament  of  Humpty  Dumpty." 

'•What  Dr.  WMtsitt  calls  the  second  stage  of 
Mr.  Campbell's  perversion  to  Sandemanianism 
was  the  adoption  of  the  views  afterward  advo- 
cated by  him  with  regard  to  baptism.  It  seems 
that  in  the  church  at  Brush  Run,  one  of  the  most 
influential  members,  Joseph  Bryant,  was  in  favor 
of  immersion.  It  became  necessary,  says  Dr. 
Whitsitt,  in  order  to  secure  his  support  and  to 
prevent  the  church  from  going  to  pieces,  that  this 
question  should  be  definitely  decided : 

"  'He  therefore  resolved  to  take  the  step  which  it 
was  becoming  evident  the  larger  portion  of  the 
church  demanded  at  the  hands  of  himself  and  his 
father.  Accordingly  he  made  preparations  to  pro- 
cure his  own  immersion.  When  he  went  to  com- 
municate his  intention  to  his  father,  an  ally  was 
found  in  the  house  in  the  person  of  his  sister 
Dorothea.  Naturally  concerned  to  avoid  an  ex- 
plosion in  the  church,  by  means  of  which  she 
might  be  required  to  decide  between  the  affection 
she  bore  her  parents  and  her  affection  for  the  man 
to  whom  she  was,  perhaps,  already  betrothed,  she 
had  become,  like  Mr.  Bryant,  a  decided  advocate 
of  immersion.    If  Mr.  Bryant,  and  the  majority 


APPENDIX. 


189 


of  the  little  church  at  Brush  Run,  could  have  been 
induced  to  tolerate  aspersion,  it  is  probable  that 
the  Campbells  would  never  have  found  it  conven- 
ient to  leave  the  side  of  the  sprinkling  Sandeman- 
ians.' 

"  This  is  our  author's  account  of  a  change,  by 
all  means  the  most  important  that  ever  occurred 
in  the  belief  and  practice  of  Alexander  Campbell 
— a  change  that  he  always  insisted  was  due  to  his 
conscientious  convictions,  growing  out  of  an  inde- 
pendent study  of  the  Scriptures.  Two  of  the  least 
creditable  motives  that  could  possibly  actuate  a 
man  in  the  matter  of  a  religious  conversion,  are 
attributed  in  this  account  to  Mr.  Campbell :  That 
he  professed  a  change  of  convictions  with  refer- 
ence to  baptism,  first,  in  order  to  retain  the  sup- 
port of  influential  members  of  his  church,  and, 
second,  to  make  sure  of  an  eligible  suitor  for  his 
sister's  hand.  To  justify  such  accusations  against 
the  motives  of  any  reputable  Christian  man,  the 
strongest  evidence  ought  to  be  produced.  In  favor 
of  the  first,  Dr.  Whitsitt  produces  only  the  fact 
that  some  members  of  the  church  strongly  favored 
immersion.  In  favor  of  the  second  he  has  nothing 
better  than  a  "  perhaps."  There  is  no  evidence 
that  Mr.  Bryant  was  a  suitor  for  Dorothea  Camp- 
bell's hand  before  her  baptism,  and  certainly  none 
that,  if  he  was  a  suitor,  either  of  the  Campbells 
was  influenced  by  that  fact. 


190 


APPENDIX. 


'•But  this  is  not  all.  Dr.  \Yhitsitt  gives  us  also 
an  account,  entirely  original  with  him,  of  Alex- 
ander Campbell's  change  of  views  with  regard  to 
the  subjects  of  baptism.  It  has  already  been  dis- 
proved by  the  summary  given  from  Mr.  Richard- 
son's narrative ;  but  it  is  worth  while  to  quote  it, 
to  show  how  completely  the  facts  have  been  mis- 
interpreted : 

"  'On  the  13th  of  March,  1812.  his  first  child  was 
born.  The  question  of  infant  baptism,  therefore, 
became  to  him  a  topic  of  special  interest.  Doubt- 
less with  reference  to  the  scruples  of  James  Fos- 
ter, lie  had  formerly  urged  that  this  point  should 
be  treated  as  a  matter  of  forbearance.  That  was 
the  utmost  limit  to  which  he  might  safely  advance 
if  he  desired  to  obtain  the  sympathy  and  support 
of  so  important  a  personage.  It  does  not  appear 
that  he  ventured  as  far  as  that  since  the  5th  of 
June,  1811,  possibly  abstaining  through  fear  of 
promoting  an  undesirable  conflict.  If  now  he  had 
dared  to  baptize  his  child,  after  its  birth  in  March, 
1812,  he  must  have  done  so  with  the  conviction 
that  the  act  would  cost  him  the  affections  and 
countenance  of  most  of  the  communicants  at 
Brush  Run.  At  any  rate,  he  could  not  make  up 
his  mind  to  provoke  the  church  in  that  way ;  and 
contrary  to  the  position  of  Greville  Ewing,  his 
child  was  compelled  to  dispense  with  baptism.' 

"The  mention  of  James  Foster's  scruples  is  en- 
tirely gratuitous,  for  it  was  the  fundamental  posi- 


APPENDIX. 


191 


tion  of  the  church  at  Brush  Run  from  its  organ- 
ization, that  the  question  of  infant  baptism  was  a 
'  matter  of  indifference.'  There  is  not  a  circum- 
stance in  the  whole  of  Alexander  Campbell's  life 
that  gives  the  slightest  warrant  for  the  imputation 
against  his  courage.  It  would  be  difficult  to  name 
the  other  man  in  the  history  of  modern  Christian- 
ity who  has  shown  a  greater  intrepidity,  a  more 
utter  disregard  of  the  opinions  and  prejudices  of 
other  men,  a  more  unflinching  determination  to 
follow  whithersoever  his  convictions  pointed  the 
way,  than  Alexander  Campbell.  Baptists  believe 
that  he  was  often  in  the  wrong,  but  he  was  never 
a  coward. 

"Dr.  Jeter,  one  of  his  most  active  contemporary 
opponents,  does  him  justice,  Avhen  he  says, 
'About  this  time  (1811),  he  was  led  to  question 
the  divine  authority  of  infant  sprinkling,  and, 
after  a  long,  serious,  and  prayerful  examination  of 
all  the  sources  of  information  within  his  reach,  to 
reject  it  and  to  solicit  immersion  on  a  profession 
of  faith.'  This  is  doubtless  the  exact  truth,  and 
the  testimony  is  of  the  higher  value,  as  it  came 
from  one  who  was,  through  most  of  his  life,  a 
vigorous  opponent  of  Mr.  Campbell's  teachings. 

"It  is  with  the  utmost  regret  that  these  strictures 
are  made  upon  Dr.  Whitsitt's  book.  All  of  the 
present  writer's  prepossessions  were  in  its  favor, 
and  it  would  have  been  a  much  more  pleasant 
task  to  commend  without  qualification,  than  to 


192 


APPENDIX. 


dispute  the  statements  of  so  eminent  a  scholar  of 
our  denomination.  But  the  accomplished  author 
would  be  the  first  to  assert  that  truth  is  the  high- 
est of  all  considerations,  and  solely  to  help  estab- 
lish the  truth  these  criticisms  are  made. 
New  York.  Hexby  C.  Vedder." 

NOTE  B. 

The  following  paragraphs  are  taken  from  a  Re- 
view in  the  New  York  Examiner  (Baptist  paper), 
of  May  17,  1888.  The  writer  shows  clearly  his 
Baptist  sympathies,  but  evidently  means  to  do 
justice.  From  a  Baptist,  this  review  is  very  sig- 
nificant: 

"  Neither  Alexander  Campbell  nor  Thomas 
Campbell  was  ever  a  member  of  the  Sandemanian 
sect.  Both  were,  ujy  to  the  time  of  their  leaving 
Scotland,  members  of  the  Seceder  Church,  now 
known  as  the  United  Presbyterian  Church.  It  is 
true  that  while  at  Glasgow  University  Alexander 
Campbell  had  been  brought  in  contact  with  the 
Sandemanians,  and  had  even  imbibed  some  of 
their  peculiar  notions,  which  were  worked  out  in 
his  'Reformation,'  but  a  Sandemanian  he  never 
was.  The  Disciples  are  not  an  '  offshoot '  of  the 
Sandemanians  in  any  such  sense  as  the  Methodists 
may  be  called  an  offshoot  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. The  connection  between  them,  such  as  it 
is,  is  limited  to  spirit  and  doctrine.    So  far  as  out- 


APPENDIX. 


193 


ward  and  organic  connection  is  concerned,  the 
Disciples  might  much  more  plausibly  be  held  to 
be  an  offshoot  of  the  Baptist  denomination." 

This  reviewer  then  proceeds  to  state  what  he  re- 
gards as  the  extent  of  Mr.  Campbell's  indebted- 
ness to  Sandeman.  Concerning  the  points  men- 
tioned he  adds  the  following : 

"These  are  the  principal  items  that  Mr.  Camp- 
bell derived  from  the  Sandemanians.  None  of 
them,  excepting  perhaps  the  first,  is  fundamental, 
as  will  readily  be  seen.  The  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  the  Disciple  faith  and  practice,  so  far  as 
they  were  borrowed,  were  derived  from  another 
source." 

Then  he  proceeds  to  administer  a  merited  .re- 
buke to  Dr.  W.  for  his  illiberal  and  unjust  treat- 
ment of  the  Scotch  Baptists,  as  follows: 

"  These  he  persists,  in  spite  of  proofs  furnished 
in  his  own  pages  to  the  contrary,  in  calling  '  the 
immersed  wing  of  the  Sandemanian  fraternity,' 
'the  immersed  Sandemanians,'  and  the  like. 
Now  it  is  quite  true  that  at  one  time  Robert  Car- 
michael  and  Archibald  M'Lean,  the  leaders  of 
the  Scotch  Baptists,  were  connected  with  the  San- 
demanian persuasion.  But  both  left  the  sect,  Mr. 
Carmichael  resigning  the  pastorate  of  the  Sande- 
manian church  in  Glasgow,  and  Mr.  M '  Lean  re- 
tiring from  membership  at  the  same  time.  '  After 
this  pair  of  friends  had  fallen  into  a  condition  of 
separation  from  the  Sandemanians,'   to  use  Dr. 

13 


194 


APPENDIX. 


Whitsitt's  own  words,  he  continues  to  call  them 
Sandemanians ;  and  this,  too,  after  they  had  come 
to  adopt  believers'  baptism,  and  had  been  them- 
selves immersed  on  profession  of  their  faith. 
That  they  no  longer  regarded  themselves  as  San- 
demanians, that  the  Sandemanians  denounced 
them  as  Anabaptists,  is  no  barrier  to  our  author's 
fixed  purpose  that  they  shall  be  Sandemanians ; 
and  Sandemanians  he  calls  them  to  the  end.  In 
our  judgment  this  is  not  historical  criticism,  it  is 
not  fair  treatment  of  the  facts." 

The  following  extract  is  specially  noteworthy, 
but  only  what  simple  honesty  required  at  the  re- 
viewer's hands: 

"  The  account  given  in  chapter  VIII.  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's adoption  of  immersion  as  baptism  and 
rejection  of  infant  baptism  is  greatly  to  be  re- 
gretted. There  is  no  good  reason — certainly  Dr. 
Whitsitt  produces  none — to  doubt  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Campbell's  biographer  that  this  step  was 
taken  after  protracted  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
much  heart-searching  on  the  part  of  both  the 
Campbells.  Professor  Richardson  gives  a  long 
and  circumstantial  narrative  of  the  causes  that 
led  to  this  action,  and  unless  that  narrative  is  an 
entire  fabrication,  the  imputations  of  unworthy 
motives  made  by  Dr.  Whitsitt  have  no  foundation 
of  fact,  and  should  be  expunged  from  his  book." 

It  was  natural  that  a  Baptist  reviewer  should 
find  in  a  book  like  Dr.  Whitsitt's  some  things  to 


APPENDIX. 


195 


be  commended.  These  are  duly  noted,  and  at 
least  as  much  credit  given  as  is  deserved.  It  is 
enough  that  this  distinguished  Baptist  says  that 
Prof.  Whitsitt  has  not  proved  his  main  thesis — 
that  which  his  book  was  meant  to  prove  ;  and  that 
an  important  section  of  it  ought  injustice  to  the 
truth  of  history  to  be  expunged.  The  Disciples 
need  ask  no  more. 


Date  Due 


|  8 

FF  17 

53 

• 



1  1 

